IN RE: Multidistrict Civil Antitrust Actions Involving Antibiotic Drugs (Group I)

Case MDL No. 10 Document 3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 1 of 56
: Kup #s LON FI sl an
fo THE JUDICIAL PANEL ge
RET ON CL OCT wy vn i: MULTIDISTRICY LITIGATION. =. Toe :
Ton Jupici SEL =
MOLTIDNS ger ot N
, ben OAT }IN RE MULTIDISTRICT CIVIL ANTITRUST ) // VROYSIZRAL srg
ACTIONS INVOLVING ANTIBIOTIC DRUGS ) DOCKET wO. 10 er
OPINION AnD ORUER TRANSFERRING MULTIDISTRICY
CIVIL ACTIONS UWDER SECTION 1407, TITLE 28,
Co UNITED STATES CODE, +0 TIE SOUTHERN DISTRICT Co
. OF NEW YORK -
BEFORL CIRCUIT JUDGES ALFRED P. URRAL AND JOHN HINOR WISDOM,
AND EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKIR, AND
JOSEPH S. LORD
WILLIAM Hi. BECKER, CHAILF JULGE
Pursuant to order and on notice to the parties to the rulti- |
district civil antitrust cases listed in the attached Schedule A,
a liearing was held on September 18, 1968, on the motion to transfer
to the Southern pistrict of New York for pretrial purposes the cases
listed in the attached Schedule A under Section 1407, Title 26, U.S.C.
(except those cases then pending in the Southern District of lew York).
This motion to transfer was submitted on behalf of defendants American
Cyanamid Company, Bristol-Myers Co., Olin-ltathieson Chemical Corp.,
and the Upjohn Company.
At the same time, on the initiative of the Panel, and
on notice to the parties to the cases listed in the attached
i Schedule 4, a hearing was held to consider transfer of all the
actions listed in the attached Schedule A under Section 1407,

Case MDL No. 10 Document 3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 2 of 56
C .
Title 28, U.S.C., to a district or districts other than the
Southern District of New York.
The following parties plaintiff in cases listed in the
attached Schedule A, in writing or orally, supported the motion
to transfer to the Southern District of New York:
State of Alabama
State of Florida
State of Illinois
State of Indiana
State of Iowa
® State of Kansas, its Departments, Agencies,Boards, Commissions, certain
Hospital Districts, Boards
of County Commissioners, and
Cities of the State of Kansas
State of Louisiana
State of Massachusetts
State of Minnesota
State of Mississippi
State of North Dakota
State of Oregon
State of Pennsylvania
State of Texas
®
-2-

Case MDL No. 10 Document3 Filed 04/27/15 Page	3 of 56
@® | oo
State of West Virginia |
City of Boston
. City of Memphis |
| City of New York
The plaintiffs State of California, County of Los
Angeles and the City and County of San Francisco opposed
the motion to transfer to the Southern District of New York.
The affected civil antitrust actions all involved the
antibiotic drug tetracycline. In each of the affected actions
there are alleged violations of the antitrust laws which were
® the basis of convictions of three of the five defendants in the
Southern District of New York.
The principal offices of four of the sellers are in the
New York area, The principal office of the fifth seller is in
Michigan.
Sixteen of the affected actions were filed and are pend=-
ing in the Southern District of New York.
Additional similar affected actions were filed and
are pending in eight other districts in the following numbers:
® . |

Case MDL No. 10 Document3 Filed 04/27/15 Page	4 of 56
C
District No. of Actions
Eastern District of Pennsylvania 4
District of Massachusetts 2
Northern District of Illinois 5
Southern District of Iowa 1
District of Kansas 1
Northern District of Texas 1
District of New Jersey 1
Northern District of California 4
Central District of California 3
® The total number of affected actions was 38 when the
notice of hearing of September 18, 1968, was issued. Since that
time there have been additional similar actions filed, transfer
of which may be considered later.
Prior to the hearing, the sixteen actions pending in the
Southern District of New York had been assigned to a single judge,
rhe Honorable Inzer B. Wyatt, District Judge. The pretrial
processes in the cases assigned to Judge Wyatt are farther advanced
than in any other action. The collection in the Southern District
of New York of relevant data and documentary information on issues
common to the actions is substantially greater than in any other
® district.
4

Case MDL No. 10 Document3 Filed 04/27/15 Page	5 of 56
CJ :
The records and evidentiary material of the related
criminal case are more readily available in the Southern District
of New York.
In some of the affected actions in the several districts
there are requests for potentially conflicting determinations
of class actions on behalf of plaintiffs and potential plaintiffs.
The affected actions meet the standards for transfer for
pretrial purposes to a single district. There are "one or more
common issues of fact' in the related actions. The Panel has
determined that transfer to the Southern District of New York
® for coordinated or consolidated proceedings of the affected
actions (pending in other districts) 'will be for the convenience
of parties and witnesses and will promote the just and efficient
conduct of such actions".
In reaching this determination the Panel hus considered
the objections to transfer to the Southern District of New York
mede at the hearing and in the briefs. Some plaintiffs who
c-iginally opposed the motion to transfer in the briefs supported
the motion at the hearing. Some plaintiffs did not oppose the
motion unconditionally but suggested that action on the motion
be deferred.
C .
-5-

Case MDL No. 10 Document 3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 6 of 56
C : The plaintiff Cities of Philadelphia and Detroit and
certain plaintiff non-profit hospitals and health centers, whose
actions are filed and pending in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, do not object to transfer of those suits to the
Southern District of New York. These plaintiffs do, however,
request that the Panel expressly exclude from the transferee
court the power to make determination of the class action requests
in those cases. To grant such a request would deny to the
transferee court the power to resolve in early pretrial the
potential conflict in multidistrict class action determinations.
Under the circumstances of this case denial of this power, if
authiorized by law, would not be in the interest of justice and
® would not promote the efficient and just conduct of the affected
actions.
Plaintiff Kent Pharmaceuticals opposes transfer of its
case from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on the ground
that it claims relief because of boycott and exclusion as a
result of the conspiracy. It points out that it has an interest
in proving that the prices and profits would be high in the
absence of the conspiracy, while the many end user plaintiffs
~6—
®

Case MDL No. 10 Document 3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 7 of 56
® have an interest in proving that the same prices would be low.
This is not a sufficient reason to deny transfer of the Kent
Pharmaceutical case. Common questions of fact in respect to
the conspiracy, economic conditions, and level of what nrices
would be in the absence of conspiracy remain. The transferee
court can schedule the pretrial including discovery on prices
and economic conditions in a manner which will be most efficient
and just to all parties. If any differences or exceptions in
pretrial are desirable in respect to Kent Pharmaceuticals, the
transferee court can control the proceedings to that end. The
Panel, however, does not suggest that such differences or excep-
tions are, or are not, appropriate.
In this connection it is significant that the plaintiff
® Continental Vitamins, an alleged excluded competitor in the
istrict of New Jersey, is in a position similar to that of
Kent Pharmaceuticals but desires that its action be transferred
to the Southern District of New York.
A very serious question is raised by the oppositien of
plaintiffs in the Wortnern and Central Districts of California.
These plaintiffs oppose transfer of their cases to liew York.
ihev suggest that if any of the California cases are to be trans-
Jerred, they be separately transferred on a regional basis to a
-7-
®

Case MDL No. 10 Document 3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 8 of 56
C California district. Some extra expense and inconvenience to
counsel in travel to ew York for pretrial conferences will
occur. But it is found that this expense and inconvenience
will be more than offset by savings from and convenience of
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings directed by .
the transferee judge.
Counsel for plaintiffs in an unlisted action, Nichardson
truz and others, voluntarily appeared at the hearing. Therefore,
tiiat unlisted case will also be transferred.
Consent of the United States District Court for the
Southern lListrict of Liew York to the assignment of the trans-
ferred actions to the lionorable Inzer B. Wyatt is attached
C hereto.For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that the 22 actions, listed in Schedule A
attached, pending in the bistricts of Massachusetts, Kansas,
and New Jersey, the tastern District of Pennsylvania, Northern |
istrict of Illinois, Southern District of Iowa, Worthern
gistrict of Texas, Northern District of California, and the
Central District of California be, and they ave hereby,
Leena ferred under Section 1407, Title 28, UL.S.U., to the
Southern District of lew York and assigned to the lionorable
Inzer B. Wyatt, District Judge. It is further
® -

Case MDL No. 10 Document 3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 9 of 56
C .
ORDERED that the action entitled Richardson Drug, et al.
v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., et al., No. 68-744~C be, and it is hereby
transferred to the Southern District of New York and assigned
to the Honorable Inzer 8. Wyatt, District Judge.
All concur.
®
|

Case MDL No. 10 Document 3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 10 of 56
SCHEDULE A
District of Massachusetts
1. City of Boston
Vv.
Chas. Pfizer & Co., et al. C.A. 68-105-G
2. Commonwealth of Massachusetts
V.
Chas. Pfizer & Co., et al, C.A. 68-116-G
District of Kansas
3. State of Kansas
— Ve
- Chas. Pfizer & Co., et al. C.A. T-4404
District of New Jersey
4, Continental Vitamin Corp.
Ve
American Cyanamid Co., et al. C.A. 826-863
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
5. City of Philadelphia and City of Detroit	——g = cose spd ane uty of betroic
v.
Chas. Pfizer & Co., et al. C.A, 68-144
6. Fort Pierce, Florida, General Hospital -
Deborah Hospital
Vv.
Chas, Pfizer & Co., et al. C.A. 68-452

Case MDL No. 10 Document3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 11 of 56
7. Sidney Hillman Labor Council
Ve
Chas, Pfizer & Co., et al. C.A. 68-162
8. Kent Pharmaceuticals
Ve
Chas. Pfizer & Co., et al. C.A. 68-384
Northern District of Illinois
9. City of Baltimore
Ve
Chas. Pfizer & Co., et al. C.A. 68C 758
10. State of Maryland
Vv.
® Chas. Pfizer & Co., et al. C.A. 68C 75711. State of New Mexico
Vv.
Chas. Pfizer & Co., et al. C.A. 68C 822
12. Cotler Drugs, et al.
Ve.
Chas. Pfizer & Co., et al. C.A. 68C 220
13. State of Connecticut
Ve.
Chas, Pfizer & Co., et al, C.A. 68C 1181
Southern District of Iowa
14. State of Iowa
Ve
Chas. Pfizer & Co., et al. C.A. 8-2130-C-2
-2-

Case MDL No. 10 Document3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 12 of 56
- Northern District of Texas
15. State of Texas
Ve.
Chas. Pfizer & Co., et al. C.A. 3-2165
Northern District of California
16. City of San Francisco
v.
Chas, Pfizer & Co., et al. C.A. 48909
17. State of California
Vv.
Chas. Pfizer & Co., et al. C.A. 49044
® 18. Bidart Bros.	Vv.
Chas. Pfizer & Co., et al. C.A. 49145
19. Los Angeles County
V.
Chas. Pfizer & Co., et al. : C.A. 49670
Centra: District of California
20. American Medical Enterprises
Chas. Pfizer & Co., et al. C.A. 67-1365-R
21. Benalen
Vv.
Chas, Pfizer & Co., et al. C.A. 67-793-R
22. Domaro
V.
® Chas, Pfizer & Co., et al. C.A. 67-1366-R
-3-

Case MDL No. 10 Document 3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 13 of 56
RE | NOV 22 1968 |
o PANEL FOR [EA..
oo THE JUDICIAL PANEL JupiciaL Pe OF TON =
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION ~~ "Amt. Ec
IN RE MULTIDISTRICT CIVIL ANTITRUST ) | a
ACTIONS INVOLVING ANTIBIOTIC DRUGS ) DOCKET NO. 10
ol OPINION AND ORDER TRANSFERRING MULTIDISTRICT oo
: CIVIL ACTIONS UNDER SECTION 1407, TITLE 28, So
UNITED STATES CODE, TO THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT
OF NEW YORK
BEFORE ALFRED P. MURRAH AND JOHN MINOR WISDOM, CIRCUIT
JUDGES, AND EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM
H. BECKER, AND JOSEPH 3S. LORD, III, DISTRICT JUDGES
PER CURIAM
On September 18, 1968, a hearing was held on the
motion of certain defendants in the above-captioned
litigation to transfer all cases (except those already
pending in that district) to the Southern District of
New York for pretrial purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1407. On October 21, 1968, the Panel ordered all such
cases transferred to the Southern District of New York
and assigned to the Honorable Inzer B. Wyatt with the
consent of the chief judge of that court. In re Multi-
: district Civil Antitrust Actions Involving Antibiotic
Drugs, F. Supp. (Judicial Panel on Multi-
district Litigation, 1968).

Case MDL No. 10 Document3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 14 of 56
v
® 2
The three cases listed on Schedule B were not
included in that order since they were filed subsequent
to order setting the matter for hearing on September 18,
1968. Counsel for the parties have filed with the clerk
of the Panel written consents to the transfer of these
three cases to the Southern District of New York and
have waived further argument with respect to such a
transfer.
Tt is manifest that these three cases involve
issues of fact common to each other and to the pre-
viously transferred cases. Their transfer to the
¢ Southern District of New York for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceeding will clearly be for
the convenience of parties and witnesses and will
promote the just and efficient conduct of such actions.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the treble damage
actions listed on the attached Schedule B be, and they
are hereby, transferred for pretrial purposes to the
Southern District of New York and with the consent of
that court heretofore filed with the clerk of the Panel,
assigned to the Honorable Inzer B. Wyatt.
Attachment
‘
EN I	—

Case MDL No. 10 Document 3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 15 of 56
BR | TH (Bf = B
| N E JUDICIAL PANEL | APR 3 1089
Co MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION JUDICIAL PAMTS, FOR
MULTI! STRIET LITIGATION
: mo or mmm
: ' IR TER
IN RE MULTIDISTRICT CIVIL ANTITRUST )
ACTIONS INVOLVING ANTIBIOTIC DRUGS ) DOCKET NO. 10
OPINION AND ORDER TRANSFERRING MULTIDISTRICT ex
oo CIVIL ACTIONS UNDER SECTION 1407, TITLE 28, =]
: UNITED STATES CODE, TO THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT es
| OF NEW YORK Ped
BEFORE ALFRED P. MURRAH, CHAIRMAN, AND JOHN MINOR WISDOM,
EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON, AND WILLIAM H. BECKER,
JUDGES OF THE PANEL
PER CURIAM
Following notice to all counsel in the then pending
cases, an initial hearing in this litigation was held on
September 18, 1968 in Washington, D. C. On October 21, 1968
an opinion and order was filed transferring twenty-three
cases to the Southern District of New York and assigning :
them to the Honorable Inzer B. Wyatt for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings. In re Antibiotic Drug
Litigation, F. Supp. (Jud. Pan. Mult. Lit. 1968).
: Twenty-four tag along cases were subsequently transferred
without opposition to the Southern District of New York
: and assigned to Judge Wyatt pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407.

Case MDL No. 10 Document3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 16 of 56
® 2
On December 12, 1968 and January 28, 1969, counsel
for the parties in certain cases, including those on the
attached list, were ordered to show cause why those cases
should not be transferred to the Southern District of
New York on the basis of the September 18, 1968 hearing
and for the reasons stated in the October 21, 1968 opinion
and order. Counsel for the plaintiffs in each of the cases
on the attached list filed responses to this order opposing
the proposed transfer.
A hearing was scheduled for February 28, 1969 to con-
sider the plalintiffs' objections to the proposed transfer
[ and counsel for all parties were notified.’ The onlyattorney appearing at the hearing who opposed the proposed
transfer represented the plaintiffs in the four Minnesota
cases.2/ All other cases were submitted on the written
opposition filed by counsel for the objecting plaintiffs
and the responses thereto filed by counsel for the
defendants. |
We are convinced that these ten cases, like the initial
group of cases, meet "the standards for transfer for pretrial
| purposes to a single district" and should be transferred to
1/ Theplaintiff in one of the cases, Beins d/b/a Waverly
Drug, et al. v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., Inc., et al., subsequently
withdrew its opposition to the proposed transfer and that
case has been transferred to the Southern District of New
York under Section 1407.
( 2/ Counsel for certain of the defendants also appeared andbriefly commented on the objections raised by the plaintiffs.

Case MDL No. 10 Document3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 17 of 56
® oC
the Southern District of New York for consolidated or
coordinated pretrial proceedings.
Counsel for the plaintiffs in the Cedars of Lebanon
Hospital and Jackson Hospital cases assert that transfer
of those cases would not be for the convenience of those
plaintiffs and its witnesses. "Of course, 1t is to the
interest of each plaintiff to have all of the proceedings
in his suit handled in his district. But the Panel must
weigh the interests of all the plaintiffs and all the
defendants and must consider multiple litigation as a whole
in the light of the purpose of the law." In re Children's
Books, F. Supp. s (Jud. Pan. Mult. Lit 1968).
® We are satisfied that the convenience of all parties and all
witnesses will be served by the transfer of these cases to
New York.
These ten cases all contain class action claims brought
under Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Counsel for
all plaintiffs urge that the transferor court be allowed to
determine the scope and status of the class action claims.3’
37 Counsel for the Arizona plaintiffs urge only that the
initial class action determination should be made by the
local court subject to redetermination by the transferee
court. We need not decide whether a judge who anticipates
that a case assigned to him will soon be transferred under
Section 1407 should abstain from determining class action
questions. But where, as here, the potential transferor
court has stayed further proceeding pending Panel action,
it seems clear that the just and efficient conduct of such
a case will be advanced by a prompt transfer of the action
so that the transferee court can proceed with its determina-
® tion of the class action question.

Case MDL No. 10 Document3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 18 of 56
» -4-
Section 1407 does not authorize the separation of issues
and the retention of the class action questions by a trans-
feror court "would make possible, and perhaps probable,
pretrial chaos and conflicting class action determination
which Section 1407 was designed to make impossible." In re
Plumbing Fixture Litigation, _____ F. Supp. _ ,
(Jud. Pan. Mult. Lit. 1968). |
Counsel for the plaintiffs in the Lee Prescription
Shop cases additionally urge that one of those two cases
should not be transferred since 1t was initially brought
under state antitrust law in a state court and was later
removed to federal court by the defendants. "The fact that
® the cause is in the district court by removal from a state
court has no bearing on a motion to transfer (under 28 U.S.C.
§1404(a)). Once removed, the action proceeds as if it had
been brought in the federal court originally." Chicago R. I.
& P. R. Co. v. Igoe, 212 F.2d 378, 382 (7th Cir., 1954). We
see no reason why this rule is any less applicable to trans-
fers under 28 U.S.C. §1407.%/ The real question 1s whether
this action lacks the commonality of faetual questions
which permeate the other cases. The factual allegations
in the state complaint are identical with those in the
4/ A motion to remand this case to the state court has been
filed in the Southern District of Florida but disposition of
it has been stayed pending Panel action. We can perceive no
reason why the transferee court will not be able to make a
® just and speedy determination of this pending motion once the	case has been transferred to it.

Case MDL No. 10 Document3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 19 of 56
® "0
complaint filed in federal court under federal antitrust
law and are not unlike those made in the vast majority of
these cases. The plaintiff does not contend that the
factual issues presented in its state case are in any
way different from those presented in the federal case.
Different legal theories present no bar to transfer under
Section 1407 where common questions of fact are present.
In re American Airlines Disaster at Greater Cincinnati
Airport, ____ F. Supp. ____ (Jud. Pan. Mult. Lit. 1968).
In addition, both cases are purported class actions
involving a class composed of "all persons, businesses,
institutions or other entities whose activities require
® that they purchase broad spectrum antibiotic . . . for
purpose of resale. . . ." This purported class conflicts
with other class action claims which are now before the
Southern District of New York and the resolution of these
conflicting class action claims by a single court will clearly
promote just and efficient conduct of these cases.
Counsel representing plaintiffs in the four Minnesota
cases initially opposed transfer so that the class action
questions could be resolved in the transferor court. At
oral argument, however, counsel abandoned his objections to
the transfer of the St. Luke's Hospital case but opposed
the transfer of the remaining three cases on the ground
®

Case MDL No. 10 Document3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 20 of 56
® -6-
that these cases do not involved antibiotic drugs for human
consumption but rather for use in animal feed and therefore
raise factual questions entirely unrelated to those presented in
the cases previously transferred to the Southern District of
New York.2/
A somewhat similar argument was advanced by the
plaintiff in Kent Pharmaceuticals v. Chas. Pfizer & Co.,
Ine., et al. who asserted that its case was different from
the rest of the pending cases because it was brought by an
excluded competitor rather than by a consumer. This differ-
ence was held insufficient to deny transfer and we believe
that in these three cases, as in the Kent case, "common
@® questions of fact in respect to the conspiracy, economic
conditions, and level of what prices would be in the absence
of the conspiracy remain." In re Antibiotic Drug Litigation,
F.Supp. ____, _ (Jud. Pan. Mult. Lit. 1968).
Similarly the short line defendants in the plumbing
fixture cases sought exclusion from the proposed transfer
on the ground that the claims against them arose from a
separate criminal indictment. In rejecting this contention
we pointed out these cases were not unrelated to the other
group of cases but that there were "questions of fact common |
*57 "one of the cases previously transferred from the Southern
District of California, Bidart Bros. v. Chas. Pfizer & Co.,
Ine., et al., was brought as a class action on behalf of all
raisers of livestock in the State of California, although this
C difference was not urged as a bar to the transfer of thatcase. We have been advised that the case has been dismissed
by the plaintiff.

Case MDL No. 10 Document3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 21 of 56
SEY
® 7
to the 39 actions on economic, technical and conspiratorial
issues." In re Plumbing Fixture Litigation, FF. Supp.
— 5» __ (Jud. Pan. Mult. Lit. 1968). We do not believe
the agricultural cases are unrelated to the human consumption
cases as both involve, at a minimum, common questions of
fact with regard to the alleged conspiracy.
If these cases are to be transferred, counsel for the
plaintiffs urge us not to "bind Judge Wyatt's hands" but
to permit him to treat these cases independently. If Judge
Wyatt determines that the agricultural cases should be
treated separately he is of course free to do so and these
® cases may be remanded to Minnesota for trial as soon as
all common discovery has been completed. We merely hold |
that there are sufficient common questions of fact to merit
consolidated pretrial proceeding as to those common questions
of fact.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the cases listed on the
attached Schedule D-1 be and they are hereby transferred
| under Section 1407 to .the Southern District of New York and
with the consent of that court assigned to the Honorable
| Inzer B. Wyatt.
Attachment
®

Case MDL No. 10 Document 3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 22 of 56
~~, 3h
eo SCHEDULE D-1
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Cedars of Lebanon Hospital Corp. v. Civil Action
Chas. Pfizer & Co., Inc., et al. No. 68 1131
Lee's Prescription Shops, Inc., et al. wv. Civil Action
Chas. Pfizer & Co., Inc., et al. No. 68-1224-CIV
Lee's Prescription Shops, Inc., et al. v. Civil Action
Chas. Pfizer & Co., Inc., et al. No. 68-1340-CIV
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
Jackson Hospital & Clinic, Inc., et al. v. Civil Action
Chas. Pfizer & Co., Inc., et al. No. 2809-N
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Arizona Foundation for Neurology and Civil Action
Psychiatry, et al. v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., No. 6967-PHX
Inc., et al.
® The County of Maricopa v. Chas. Pfizer Civil Action	& Co., Inc., et al. No. 6961-PHX
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
St. Lukes Hospital, et al. v. American Civil Action
Cyanamid Co., et al. No. 68 L408
Doughboy Industries, Inc., et al. v. Civil Action
American Cyanamid Co., et al. No. 68 409
Minnesota Fur Foods Cooperative, et al. v. Civil Action
American Cyanamid Co., et al. No. 68 410
The Grange Company, et al. v. American Civil Action
Cyanamid Co., et al. No. 68 411

Case MDL No. 10 Document 3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 23 of 56
SORT , JUDICIAL PANEL ON ooPRISER NEE | : MLTIDISTRICT LITIGATION .
CORRECTED THE JUDICIAL PANEL EILEDCa ON
Sa MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION JUL9 1969
IN RE MULTIDISTRICT CIVIL ANTITRUST ) SLR
ACTIONS INVOLVING ANTIBIOTIC DRUGS ) DOCKET NO. 10 :
OPINION
BEFORE ALFRED P. MURRAH, CHAIRMAN, AND JOHN MINOR WISDOM*, oo
EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER AND
JOSEPH S. LORD, III, JUDGES OF THE PANEL
PER CURIAM ESOn October 21, 1968 following notice and hearing, the =
Panel ordered 22 cases pending in nine different districts =	transferred under 28 U.S.C. §1407 to the Southern District =u
of New York and assigned to Judge Inzer B. Wyatt of that court.
Since then forty-nine other cases have been transferred to the
Southern District of New York and assigned to Judge Wyatt.
In addition thirty cases were originally commenced in that
district and these too have been assigned to Judge Wyatt.
On February 6, 1969 the defendants made a tentative .
not lement offer totalling $130,000,000 premised upon the
establishment of class actions embracing all potential claims
against the defendants. The settlement proposal further
: provides that if some of the class members request exclusion and
do not otherwise participate in the settlement there shall be
- ¥ Although he was unable to be present at the Denver
’ hearing, Judge Wisdom has, with the consent of the
parties, participated in this decision.

Case MDL No. 10 Document3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 24	of 56
® “2.an appropriate reduction ln the slze of the settlement fund.
On May 23, 1969 Judge Wyatt entered an order establishing
certain procedures for the administration cf the settlement
and the establishment of the class actions. State of West
Virginia v. Charles Pfizer et al. ___ F.R.D.	_ (S.D.N.Y.)
On March 24, 1969 the Panel entered & conditional transfor
ordert/ transferring the State of Washington case from the
Western District of washington to the Southern District of
New York. Counsel for the plaintiff oppos-¢ the proposed
transfer and an order was entered staying the eoxecutlon of the
conditional transfer order "until further or.	r of this Panel.”
At the request of counsel for the plaintiff a hearing was held
Qo on May 23, 1969 in Denver, Colorado.
On May 14, 1969 a conditional transfer order was entered
transferring the Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound case
from the Western District of Washington to the Southern District
of New York. On May 23, 1969, the same day that the State
of Washington case was being argued in Denver, counsel for
this plaintiff filed their opposition to the proposed transfer
of this case with the clerk in Washington, D. C. Plaintiff's
Counsel advised the clerk that a hearing would not be required
in connection with the Group Health Case az the arguments made
© 1/ The conditional transfer order and its use are more fully
described in In Fe Gypsum Wallboard Cases _____ Fed. Supp.______
(Jud. Pan. Mult. Lit. 1969)
® |

Case MDL No. 10 Document3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 25 of 56
® S3. |
in the State of Washington case were equally applicable to the :
Group Health Case. '
Without in any way critisizing Judge Wyatt for his
handling of this litigation up to the present time, counsel
for the plaintiffs urge that the task of administering the
settlement program and conducting pretrial proceedings in the
non-settling cases is too great for any one judge. The plaintiffs
have indicated that they will not participate in the settlement
program and wish to expedite pretrial proceedings so that these
cases can be tried without undue delay. In the memorandum in
support of their opposition to the transfers, counsel for the
® plaintiffs requested that these two cases either be left inthe Western District of Washington or that they and the other
non-settling cases be transferred to a separate district and
assigned to another judge, preferrably on the West Coast.
Without minimizing the tremendous burden placed on a single
judge by such a mass of litigation, we see no reason for
fragmenting this litigation at the present time. In addition
to the present difficulty in discerning the settling and non-
settling parties, the partitioning of the cases could lead to
conflicting class actions, a situation which §1407 was designed
to prevent. In Re Plumbing Fixture Cases ____Fed.Supp.___
(Jud. Pan. Mult. Lit. 1968) None of the parties in the non-
settling cases has requested Judge Wyatt to proceed with pretrial
J © 3/ This request was seemingly abandoned by counsel in argumentbefore the Panel as he merely emphasized the enormity of Judge
Wyatt's task and suggested that another judge be made available if
necessary.

Case MDL No. 10 Document 3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 26 of 56
® -
discovery and there 1s absolutely no indication that Judge
Wyatt is unwilling or unable to conduct pretrial proceedings
in the non-settling cases while supervising the administration
of the settlement program.
The motions to vacate the conditional transfer orders of
March 24, 1969 and May 14, 1969 are denied; the stays of
those orders are hereby lifted and the Clerk of the Panel
is directed to transmit them forthwith to the Clerk of the
Southern District of New York for filing and distribution
pursuant to §1407.
®
®

Case MDL No. 10 Document 3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 27 of 56
y | JUDICIAL PANEL ONoo MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION oC
EEE THE JUDICIAL PANEL FILED Ce
ON
RE MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION AUG 2 11968
| PATRICIA D. WAL
| | IN RE MULTIDISTRICT CIVIL ANTITRUST N) ae
LITIGATION INVOLVING ANTIBIOTIC DRUGS )
") DOCKET NO. 10
Jack England v. Charles Pfizer & Co., Inc., ) -
et al., W.D. Ark., Civil No. ED-69-C-8 ©)
Co OPINION AND ORDER ~
BEFORE ALFRED P. MURRAH, CHAIRMAN, AND JOHN MINOR WISDOM¥,
EDWARD WEINFELD, ETWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER, JOSEPH
S. LORD, III¥*, JUDGES OF THE PANEL
PER CURIAM
: The complaint filed on March 21, 1769 disclosed that ———
the above-captioned case was related to litigation which had S=XSih
previously been transferred to the Southern District of New Yh
York for consolidated or coordinated pretrial proceedings under SE
$1407. A conditional transfer order was entered on May 14, 1969
transferring this case to the Southern District of New York
on the basis of prior hearings held by the Panel in connection
with this litigation and for the reasons stated in the previous
1 . :
transfer orders and opinions .%’ This order was automatically
* Judges Wisdom and Lord were unable to attend the hearing in
Denver, Colorado but with the consent of all parties they have
} participated in this decision.
1/ In re Antibiotic Drugs, 295 Fed. Supp.l402 (JPML 1968); 297 Fed.
Supp. 1126 (JPML 1968); Fed. Supp. (JPML April 3, 1969); Fed.
Supp. (JPML July 9, 1969)

Case MDL No. 10 Document3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 28 of 56
-2 =
C stayed ten days to permit any party to oppose the transfer if
it wished to do so. Counsel for the plaintiff filed a motion
to vacate the conditional transfer order and that order was
stayed until further order of the Panel. Counsel for the
plaintiff also requested a hearing on its objection to the
proposed transfer and the matter was set for hearing during
the regular July session held in Denver on July 25, 1969.
In his original brief opposing the transfer counsel
for the plaintiff contended that the transfer of this case to
the Southern District of New York would neither be for the
convenience of parties and witnesses nor would it promote the
just and efficient conduct of this action. Counsel further
asserted that the only parties who would be convenlenced by the
® transfer are the defendants but that the transfer of this case
would cause the plaintiff and its attorney additional expense and
inconvenience. Of course we realize that each plaintiff would
prefer to have all of the proceedings in his suit handled in
his district. "But the Panel must weigh the interests of all
the plaintiffs and of all the defendants, and must consider
multiple litigation as a whole in the light of the purposes of
the law." In re Library Editions of Children's Books 297 Fed.
Supp. 385, 386(JPML 1968). We also recognize that some extra
expense and inconvenience will be involved in counsel's travel
to New York for pretrial conferences but we believe that this
expense and inconvenience wlll be more than offset by savings
® from, and convenience of coordinated and consolidated pretrial |

Case MDL No. 10 Document3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 29 of 56
- 3 -
® proceedings directed by the transferee judge. In re Antibiotic
Drugs, 295 Fed. Supp. 1402, 1404(JPML 1968).
Counsel is also concerned about the great burden which
has been imposed on Judge Wyatt by the assignment of these many
cases to him and he apparently fears that the noneettling cases
will be ignored while Judge Wyatt concentrates on administering
the settlement program. As we have recently pointed out "none
of the parties in the nonsettling cases have requested Judge
Wyatt to proceed with pretrial discovery and there is absolutely
no indication that Judge Wyatt is unwilling or unable to conduct
pretrial proceedings in the nonsettling cases while supervising
the administration of the settlement program." In re Antibiotic
® Drug Litigation Fed. Supp. (JPML July 9, 1969) (slip opinionat pages 3 & 4).
In his supplemental brief counsel urges that his case
lacks the predicate common questions of fact with the other drug
cases which have been filed in, or transferred to the Southern
District of New York since this is a case involving drugs used
in poultry feed?’ rather than drugs for human consumption. Perhaps
2/ In addition to the original and intervening plaintiffs this
action was commenced as a class action in which the plaintiffs
purport to represent a class consisting of "all livestock and poultry
feed manufacturers, mixers and compounders, all poultry hatcheries,
poultry raisers, poultry feeders, poultry egg producers, poultry
processors, animal and livestock breeders, animal and livestock
raisers, animal and livestock feeders, and animal and livestock
processors located in the United States of America and elsewhere, who
have purchased, paid for and used (any one or more of such activ-
ities) broad spectrum antibiotics or broad spectrum antibiotic
products, directly or indirectly, during the period in suit and
C have sustained damage as a result of the monopoly, combination andconspiracy herein alleged.

Case MDL No. 10 Document3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 30 of 56
NEP
- 4 -
C the most important question of fact common to the agricultural
cases is whether or not they can rely on the prior criminal
convictions of these defendants in the Southern District of
New York. In excluding thls class of plaintiffs from their
settlement offer, the defendants have indicated that they do
not believe that agricultural products were included in the :
criminal actions. The plaintiffs on the other hand hope to
rely on the criminal conviction.3 In any event we have already
held that the agriculture cases are sufficiently factually
related to the human consumption cases to justify their transfer
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings under 28
U.S.C. §1407. In re Antibiotic Drug Litigation __ Fed. Supp.___
(JPML April 3, 1969). We are constrained to add that the very
a broad class action claims presented in the instant case are in
potential conflict with the agricultural cases previously trans-
ferred to the Southern District of New York. The transfer of all
such cases to a single district will eliminate the pessibility of
conflicting or overlapping class actions. See In re Plumbing
Fixture cases 298 Fed. Supp. 484(JPML 1968).
We have no doubt that the transfer of this case to the
Southern District.	of New York for coordination and consolidation
with the other cases filed or transferred there under §1407 will
3/ In another setting it was the defendants who opposed transfer
on the ground that the civil actions were broader than the gov-
ernment indictment. We pointed out that "genuine common questions
of fact do not depend upon the limits or breadth of the indictment
or convictions in any case." In re East of the Rockies Concrete
Pipe Litigation __ Fed. Supp.__ (JPML 1969) (Filed May 23, 1969, :
slip opinion at page 9). See also Leh v. General Petroleum Corp.,
382 U.S. 56.

Case MDL No. 10 Document 3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 31 of 56
Ee ok YUDICIAL PANEL ONREE MULTICISTRICT LITIGATION .
Sh | FILED 2
PE JAN 301970
THE JUDICIAL PANEL . PALUZIA CCD i
: ON CLERK OQ. ,..J PANEL
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE MULTIDISTRICT CIVIL ANTITRUST )
ACTIONS INVOLVING ANTIBIOTIC DRUGS ) DOCKET NO. 10
oC United States v. Charles Pfizer, )
et al., D. D.C., Civil Action No. ) Tn
1966-69 )
OPINION AND ORDER
BEFORE ALFRED P. MURRAH, CHAIRMAN, AND JOHN MINOR WISDOM,
EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER, AND p
JOSEPH S. LORD, III, JUDGES OF THE PANEL
PER CURIAM oo
On July 15, 1969 the United States filed a three count
EEE
civil action in the United States District Court for the =.
1/ See
District of Columbia against the same seven drug companies~ ==
that are defendants in more than 125 private treble damage TE
antitrust actions originally filed in or transferred to the
Southern District of New York for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. All
defendants have joined in a motion to transfer this action to :
theSouthern District of New York under Section 1407. The
Government vigorously opposes the transfer of this action to
1/ Charles Pfizer & Co., Inc., American Cyanamid Company,
i : Bristol-Myers Company, Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation,
Squibb Beech-Nut, Inc., E. R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., and the
Upjohn Company.

Case MDL No. 10 Document3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 32 of 56
® - 2 - |
the Southern District of New York. A hearing was held in
Philadelphia on December 8, 1969 to consider the transfer and
all parties in this mulitidistrict litigation were notified.
Although combined in a single complaint, each of the three :
counts states a separate cause of action, requests different
relief and involves different defendants. We have therefore
separately considered the possible transfer of each count or
claim for relief.
Count I names Pfizer as the sole defendant and seeks
cancellation of Pfizer's tetracycline patent "on the grounds
that the patent was procured by fraud in that Pfizer, in the
® course of prosecuting its patent application, made false and
misleading statements to, and withheld material information
from, the Patent Office but for which conduct no patent would
have issued." Counsel for the Government stresses the uniqueness
of the relief requested in Count I while counsel for Pfizer
stresses the fact that most of the private actions also allege
"fraud on the Patent Office" as one of the offenses committed
by the defendants .2/ Of course, the applicability of different
2/ For example, the plaintiffs in Ford Hopkins, et al. v. Chas.
Pfizer & Co., Inc., et al. (filed in the Northern District of
Illinois and transferred to the Southern District of New York
under section 1407) charge that "Pfizer and Cyanamid and Bristol
withheld pertinent and material information from the Patent
Office and otherwise misled the Patent Office prior to the
issuance of Pfizer's Tetracycline patent."
|

Case MDL No. 10 Document3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 33 of 56
° “ae
legal principles will not prevent the transfer of an action
under section 1407 if the requisite common questions of fact
exist. In the Matter of Westee Corporation, FF. Supp.
(J. .M.L. 1969).
But conceding the existence of some common questions of
fact with respect to "fraud on the Patent Office" claims, it
does not appear that any additional discovery will be required
in connection with Count I.3/ We are convinced that the just
and efficient conduct of all of the civil actions involved in
this multidistrict litigation will be best served by severing
the patent cancellation claim (Count I) and leaving it in the
® United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
The remainder of this action (Count II and Count III) is
brought by the Government "in its capacity as a direct purchaser
of broad spectrum antibiotics . . . and as the party providing
funds for the purchase of such products by various agencies
under federally assisted programs and pursuant to various
foreign aid programs."
Count II is denominated as a "common law action of deceit”
and as such would not be subject to the four year statute of
limitations applicable to Count III. (Cf. United States v.
Grinnell (S.D. N.Y., October 20, 1969). Like Count III, it is
3/ During oral argument counsel for the Government informed
us that the Government intended to file a motion for summary
® judgment on Count I.

Case MDL No. 10 Document3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 34 of 56
® a.
an action for damages but, like Count I, it is based on a
"fraud on the Patent Office" claim. As the majority of the
private damage actions include substantially identical allega-
tions, we are satisfied that Count II raises sufficient common
questions of fact to justify its transfer.
Counsel for the Government emphasizes that Count 1114/ is
based solely on the commercial exploitation of the tetracycline
patent which was allegedly procured by fraud on the Patent
Office. A comparison of the offenses charged under Count III
(Government Complaint, pp. 35-39) to those contained in the
majority of the private actions in this multidistrict litigation
[ reveals the existence of numerous, complex common questions of
fact. There can be little doubt that all discovery relating
to these common questions of fact should be coordinated by a
single court.
47 Count III is brought under Section 4A of the Clayton Act
(15 U.S.C. §15A) and is thus specifically excluded from the
statutory bar contained in section 1407(g).
5/ Factual allegations common to Count III and, for example,
the Ford Hopkins complaint, supra, include:
(1) that Cyanamid refused to grant licenses for the
manufacture of Aureomycin to anyone but Pfizer & Bristol;
(2) that Pfizer refused to grant licenses for the :
manufacture of tetracycline to anyone but Cyanamid and
Bristol;
(3) that Cyanamid and Bristol fraudulently assisted
Pfizer in obtaining its tetracycline patent;
(4) that Pfizer committed "fraud on the Patent Office"
with regard to its tetracycline patent; and
(5) that Bristol refused to sell bulk tetracycline to
[ anyone but Squibb and Upjohn.

Case MDL No. 10 Document3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 35 of 56
® - 5 -
There is an additional reason for transferring Counts II
and III to the Southern District of New York. Under both of
these counts the Government seeks to recover money damages
resulting from the purchase of broad spectrum antibiotics by
"various agencies under federally assisted programs." Many
of the recipients of these federal funds, including virtually
all the fifty states, have brought their own actions for damages
based in part on the same purchases. Thus even transaction data
will, to some degree, be common to the Government action and
to those actions brought by states and political subdivisions
and agencies thereof. In addition, the transfer of Counts II
and III will eliminate possible overlapping recoveries based
® on the same purchases.
The Government also suggests that the transfer of this
action to the Southern District of New York and its assignment
to Judge Inzer Wyatt would add substantially to the "staggering
burden" of processing the numerous actions already assigned to
him. The burden is indeed a heavy one but we can take judicial
notice of the fact that Judge Wyatt is capably overseeing not
only the settlement of the majority of these actions but also
discovery and other pretrial proceedings in the non-settling
cases. We believe that Counts II and III are so closely
related to the actions already assigned to Judge Wyatt that
their assignment to him will not significantly increase the
[ burden created by this assignment of the multidistrict litiga-tion to him.

Case MDL No. 10 Document 3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 36 of 56
® 6
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action be and the
same is hereby transferred to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York and with the prior
consent of that court assigned to the Honorable Inzer B.
Wyatt for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1407.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the claim embodied in Count I
of the Government complaint is seperated and remanded	to the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 (a).
®
@

Case MDL No. 10 Document 3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 37 of 56
B ’ 04 4
0 i THE JUDICIAL PANEL JUDICIAL PANEL oN .
RO ON MULTIBISTRICT LITIGATION
E : MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION FILLED -
ARE © IN RE MULTIDISTRICT CIVIL ANTITRUST ) BEC-2 1970
ACTIONS INVOLVING ANTIBIOTIC DRUGS ) ...DOCKET NO. 10
: : PATRICILT, HOWARD :
CLERK GF THE PANEL Co
OPINION AND ORDER
BEFORE ALFRED P. MURRAH, CHAIRMAN, AND JOHN MINOR WISDOM, EDWARD B
WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER, AND JOSEPH S. LORD,
- III*, JUDGES OF THE PANEL oo
PER CURIAM
More than one hundred and fifty related civil antitrust
actions have been transferred to the Southern District of New
York and assigned to Judge Inzer B. Wyatt for coordinated or :
consolidated pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §1407. In re :
Antibiotic Drug Litigation, 309 F. Supp. 155 (1970), 303 F. Supp.
1056 (1969), 301 F. Supp. 1158 (1969), 292 F. Supp. 1403 (1969),
and 295 F. Supp. 1402 (1968). All of these actions are to some :
degree related to the 1958 Federal Trade Commission proceedings
and to the 1961 criminal antitrust prosecution which resulted in
a conviction later reversed on appeal. U.S. v. Charles Pfizer &
Co., 426 F.2d 32 (24 cir. 1970).
On September 29, 1970 orders and judgments were filed in :
sixty-six of these actions approving previously proposed settle-
ments and dismissing them with prejudice. Notices of appeal have
been filed in many if not all of these actions. tr* Judge Joseph S. Lord, III, was unable to attend the hearing
: in this matter but has, with the consent of all parties appearing
at the hearing, participated in this decision on the basis of the NE
pleadings and the transcript of the hearing. 0 ,
8

Case MDL No. 10 Document3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 38 of 56
. . ,
. twenty-eight other actions are in the process of being settled.
_ The remaining fifty-eight cases,l/ many of which seek class
action status, are not included in the various settlements either
because the plaintiffs rejected the settlement offer of, for
example, in the farm cases, 2/ because the settlement offer was
not extended to them.
On October 2, 1970 the non-settling plaintiffs' "National
Steering Committee" filed a motion with the Panel for an order
retransferring all non-settling cases previously transferred to
the Southern District of New York under §1407 and transferring
all non-settling actions filed in the Southern District of New
York to the District of Minnesota or to another district, pre-
ferably in the West or Midwest. Because f the decisio.. herein
denying this request, we do not decide whether such a second
1/ The number of settling cases may be increased by one and the
non-settling cases decreased by one if the motion in the French
Hospital Case is granted and that action included in the private
hospital settlement.
2/ The farm or agricultural cases involve purchases of antibiotic
drugs used in animal feed and feed supplements. The following ac-
tions are included in this group: The Anderson Cattle Company Case
transferred from the District of Kansas; the Balfour, Guthrie Case
transferred from the Northern District of California; the Burgess
. Poultry Market Case transferred from the Western District of Texas;
the Doughboy Industries Case, the Hoffert Case, the Grange Company
Case, the Midwest Veterinary Supply Case, and the Minnesota Fur Food
Case - all transferred from the District of Minnesota; the Edwards
Bros. Case transferred from the Eastern District of North Carolina;
the Jack England Case transferred from the Western District of
Arkansas; the Missouri Farmers Association (Case transferred from
the Western District of Missouri; the Kenneth Murray Company Case,
the Philips Case and the Rutledge Ranch Case - all transferred from
the Northern District of Alabama; the A. C. Smith Poultry Company
Case transferred from the Northern District of Georgia; the Sylvan
Acres Case transferred from the Northern District of Illinois; and
the Marshall Durbin Case transferred from the Middle District of
Alabama. Most of these actions were commenced long after the initial
transfer order was filed and several were filed earlier this year.

Case MDL No. 10 Document3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 39 of 56
: ¥
3 .
® transfer of the same cases is within the power of the Panel.
The eight grounds for the requested relief can be combined into
three:
(a) The burden of administering the settling cases and
conducting discovery and other pretrial proceedings in
the non-settling cases coupled with the normal duties
imposed on Judge Wyatt as a judge of the Southern District
of New York is "entirely too great a task for any one
judge."
(b} Discovery and other pretrial proceedings in the non-
settling cases have not proceeded as rapidly as they should
have.
(c) Judge Wyatt's approval of the settlement presents
"potential barriers to or conflicts with non-settling
plaintiffs' requirement for full discovery...."
Not satisfied with having one judge and one court for the settling
cases and another judge and court for the non-settling cases, the
@ States of California, Kansas and North Carolina request that all
non-gsettling government cases’ be assigned to still another judge
and presumably another district.
After a complete and careful review of the status of this
litigation we have concluded that neither the just and efficient
conduct of this massive litigation nor the convenience of the
parties and their witnesses would be served by granting the
requested relief. We do recognize that this litigation has
become too large and toc complex to be processed by a single
judge and believe that the just and efficient conduct of this
3/ This group includes actions brought by the United States,
and by California, Hawaii, Kansas, North Carolina, Oregon, Utah,
Washington, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Kansas City, Missouri.
With the exception of the United States, all were invited to join
this settlement and declined to do so,

Case MDL No. 10 Document3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 40 of 56
4
® litigation would be best served by assigning the non-settling
cases to a secand judge. With the consent and cooperation of
the Chief Judges of the affected courts, Judge Miles Lord of :
the District of Minnesota has been assigned to the Southern
District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §292(c) and the non-
settling cases will be assigned to him for the completion of
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.%/
It might be well to add a few words about the factors which
have not influenced our decision to assign the non-settling cases
to another judge. First and foremost this decision reflects no
dissatisfaction with the way that Judge Wyatt has handled this
litigation. We doubt that any other single judge could have done
so well, Certainly no one could have been more conscientious,
® diligent and scrupulously fair to all parties.
Secondly, we reject the contention raised by the moving
plaintiffs that the rulings and comments made by Judge Wyatt
in his opinion approving settlement5/ raise "barriers to or
~ conflict with litigating plaintiffs' requirements for full
discovery...." The precise thrust of this argument is not
4f While this particular relief was not requested by any party
all were placed on notice that such relief was contemplated for
the Panel Hearing Order of October 12, 1970 provided, in part,
"that at said hearing and on its own initiative the Panel shall
consider the assignment of any or all of the actions listed on
Schedule A to another judge for completion of coordinated or con-
solidated pretrial proceedings in the Southern District of New
York. LI I "
| 5/ State of West Virginia v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., 314 F. Supp.	710 (S.D. N.Y. 1970)

Case MDL No. 10 Document3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 41 of 56
5
® totally clear. If the claim is that a judge who has approved
a settlement (which necessarily involves an assessment of the
probability of success) is by that reason alone somehow dis-
qualified from processing the non-settling case, we find it
entirely without legal support. Judges are often called upon
to make preliminary determinations of the merits of the cause
before them, for example in determining motions for restraining
orders or preliminary injunctions, and that alone forms no
basis for disqualification.
If, on the other hand, the claim is that Judge Wyatt has
evidenced a personal bias and prejudice toward the non-settlers,
the charge is wholly unsupported by record and actually repudiated
~ by some of the moving plaintiffs.%/
@® We do believe that this litigation has simply become too
massive and burdensome for any one judge to process efficiently
and expeditiously. Contrary to the defendant's assertion it is
6/ For example, the Attorney General of the State of North
Carolina felt it necessary to submit a letter in which he
: emphasizes "that North Carolina's counsel has at all times
been most impressed with the fairness, knowledge, ability, and
patience shown to North Carolina's counsel by the Honorable
Inzer B. Wyatt at all times when North Carolina had any matter
pending in Judge Wyatt's court."

Case MDL No. 10 Document3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 42 of 56
6
®
clear to us that the task of administering the settlement
has just begun.’ Supervision of discovery and other pretrial
proceedings in the non-settling cases will likewise create its
own substantial judicial burden.
Turning to the plaintiffs arguments in support of transfer
to Minnesota we find that most of their points are in reality
directed to the proposition that a second judge is needed to
handle the non-settling cases, a contention with which we now
agree. The remaining factors allegedly supporting transfer to
the District of Minnesota are:
(1) Several of farm cases were filed in the District of
@® Minnesota and all plaintiffs in the farm cases have indicatedtheir willingness to have all such cases consolidated for trial
in Minnesota.
(2) Only six of the fifty-eight non-settliing cases were
filed in the Southern District of New York.
(3) It would be more convenient for plaintiff's counsel
to travel to Minnesota than to New York City.
(4) The court calendar is more current in Minnesota than
in New York.
(5) Two different circuits should be given an opportunity
to rule on the validity of the settlement proceedings.
7/ In response to a similar suggestion during the September 24,
1970 pretrial conference, Judge Wyatt commented as to the work
ahead: "I think that as far as the settling cases are concerned,
& it could by no means be said that they are completed...but the	responsibility still remains with many, many, many problems that
I can foresee in the distribution to class members, the proof of
claims, the disposal of unclaimed amounts. I can't even predict
the number of problems." Transcript, pages 98 ~- 99.

Case MDL No. 10 Document3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 43 of 56
7
® (6) The plaintiffs have hired expert witnesses and estab-lished a document depository in Minneapolis.
(7) There is no longer a possibility of conflicting class
action decisions.
Actually only the first of these reason gives any real support
to the proposition that the District of Minnesota is a more appro-
priate district for the completion of pretrial proceedings in the
non-settling cases than is the Southern District of New vork.8/
If this were a new group of multidistrict litigation it might
be that some of these factors could lead the Panel to select
a district other than the Southern District of New York. But
where, as here, the litigation has for several years had its
focal point in one court it would take a much stronger showing
® than made here to justify retransfer of these cases to anotherdistrict.
There are three factors which compel us to leave these
cases in the Southern District of New York. First there is an
enormous quantity of relevant documents located in New York
City. The files in these cases alone fill a special file room
in the clerk's office in the Southern District of New York.
. More important, the defendants have established a document
depository in New York City in which more than 24,000 documents
3/ This argument had sufficient merit for the Panel to ask JudgeMiles Lord, the judge to whom the Minnesota cases were assigned be-
fore their transfer to New York, to accept assignment to the Southern
District of New York so that all non-settling cases could be assigned
to him. In this way Judge Lord can conduct pretrial proceeding in
New York and can, upon completion of pretrial proceeding, try the
y farm cases in Minnesota.

Case MDL No. 10 Document3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 44 of 56
oo 8
: have been deposited. Finally, of course, the files and
® records in the criminal case are also located in New York City.
These factors alone would preclude the transfer of these cases
to any other district in the absence of a strong showing that |
some other district had a greater nexus with this litigation.
No other showing has been made here.
Second, when a not dissimilar request was rejected more
than a year ago, the Panel observed the difficulties in "dis-
cerning the settling and non-settling parties." In re Antibiotic
Drug Litigation, 301 F. Supp. 1158, 1160 (JPML 1969). It is
true that the identity and status of the settling and non-settling
cases are much clearer now than they were a year ago but they are
still subject to some further change. For example, plaintiff's
® joint reply memorandum filed October 22, 1970 points out thatcounsel for the plaintiff in the French Hospital Case has asked to
have the case removed from the class of miscellaneous non-settling
cases and transferred to the group of private hospital and Blue
Cross Plan cases which are involved in settlement proceedings. While
the number of such transfers might now be small, their problems will
be minimized by keeping all cases in the same court while assigned
to different judges. Since it now appears that there will be
an appeal from the order and judgment approving the settlement,
it is possible that all settling plaintiffs could become non-
settling plaintiffs. Should that happen, there can be no doubt
9/ The plaintiffs seem to deprecate the value of this document
depository. Since is is being maintained at a substantial expense
| and inconvenience to the defendant,it should be closed and docu-ments returned if it is no longer needed by the plaintiffs.

Case MDL No. 10 Document3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 45 of 56
9
® that the maintenance of both parts of this litigation in the |same court would facilitate their assimilation into the litiga-
ting group.
A final and most persuasive reason for leaving all actions
in the same district relates to the ever present potential for
conflicting class action determination. One pending case,
Connors et al. v. Pfizer, et al. is referred to by the
defendants as an example of a conflicting class action claim
and by the National Steering Committee in support of their
contention that conflicting class action determinations are
no longer possible. As we understand his position,19/counsel
for Connors, although not appealing from the judgment approving
the settlement, may continue to press for class action recog-
C nition on behalf of either a nationwide or a statewide classboth of which unquestionably overlap with settlement classes.
Counsel for Connors anticipates that the defendant will
move to dismiss his class action claims on the basis that
| the judgment in the settling cases bind all members of those
classes who did not actually opt out. Connors will then be able
to attack collaterally the validity of the entire settlement
proceeding, including the validity of notice both with respect
to the requirements of Rule 23 and the Constitutional require-
ments of due process. This he is, of course, entitled to do,
but we do not believe that such a collateral attack should be
10/ Mr. Scanlon appeared at the hearing in Boston and made a
& brief statement regarding his class action claims. He also	submitted a letter to the Clerk clarifying his position.

Case MDL No. 10 Document 3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 46 of 56
i 10
made in another district and another circuit.ll/ Where, as
SS
here, different judges will have to rule on potentially con-
flicting and overlapping class action claims, efficient adminis-
tration of justice demands that, if at all possible, a single
court of appeals review these determinations. Nor are we per-
suaded that the non-settling government cases require separate
treatment. We are certain that Judge Miles Lord will direct
discovery in such a way that pretrial in all non-settling cases
will proceed expeditiously and efficiently and without delay or :
duplication.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motions of the plaintiffs
to transfer the non-settling actions to another district is
denied.
—~ IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all non-settling actions listed
on the attached Schedule A are, with the consent of the Chief
Judge of the Southern District of New York and of Judge Inzer B.
Wyatt assigned to the Honorable Miles Lord, United States
District Judge, for further coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.
11/ Counsel is concerned that the Second Circuit may have "pre-
judged" this issue in reviewing the settlement and "would have a
pressure upon them to be consistent in their determination of the
efficacy of the settlement (on collateral attack)." We cannot
grant counsel's request that the non-settling cases be transferred
to another district and circuit so that an inconsistent decision
can be obtained. One of the purposes of section 1407 is to eliminate
"inconsistent judicial treatment." In re Fourth (Class Postage
Regulation, 298 F. Supp. 1327 (JPML 1969).
SN
J
Vr 4

Case MDL No. 10 Document3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 47 of 56
* SCHEDULE A - 2 - DOCKET NO. 10
Jack England, d/b/a England Feed & Equipment Co., Civil Action
et al. v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., Inc., et al. (W.D. No. 69 Civ. 3772
Ark., No. ED-69-C-8) :
The Grange Co., et al. v. American Cyanamid Civil Action
Co., et al. (Minn., No. 4-68-411) No. 64 Civ. 1556
Midwest Veterinary Supply, Inc., et al. v. Civil Action
American Cyanamid Co., et al. (Minn., No. No. 69 Civ. 1557
4-69-75)
Minnesota Fur Foods Cooperative, et al. v. Civil Action
American Cyanamid Co., et al. (Minn., No. No. 69 Civ. 1559
4-68-410)
Missouri Farmers Association, Inc., et al. v. Civil Action
Chas, Pfizer & Co., Inc., et al. (W.D. Mo., No. 69 Civ. 4261
No. 17640-4
Kenneth Murray Co. v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., Inc., civil Action
et al. (N.D. Ala., No. 69-768) No. 69 Civ. 5685
Guy J. Phelps, Jr. v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., Inc., Civil Action
J et al. (N.D. Ala., No. 69-767 No. 69 Civ. 5684Rutledge Ranch v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., Inc., et al. Civil Action
(N.D. Ala., No. 69-766) No. 69 Civ. 5683
A. C. Smith Poultry Co., et al. v. Chas. Civil Action
Pfizer & Co., Inc., et al. (N.D. Ga., No. 1293) No. 69 Civ. 5574
Sylvan Acres, Inc., et al. v. Chas. Pfizer & Civil Action
Co., Inc., et al. (N.D. Ill., No. 70 C 39) No. 70 Civ. 477
Marshall Durbin Food Corp., et al. v. Chas. Civil Action
Pfizer & Co., Inc., et al. (M.D. Ala., No. 3015-N No. 70 Civ. 677
) Marvin Barkal v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., Inc., Civil Action
et al. (N.D. Ill., No. 69 C 647) No. 69 Civ. 1867
Building Service Union Health & Welfare Trust Civil Action
Fund v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., Inc., et al. (N.D. No. 69 Civ. 3220
Calif., No. 51523)
Lester Cronley, et al. v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., Civil Action
Inc., et al. (S.D. Ind., No. IP 69-C-366) No. 69 Civ. 4025
Generic Formulae Inc. v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., Civil Action
V { Inc. (E.D. N.Y., No. 66 Civ. 640) No. 69 Civ. 1000

Case MDL No. 10 Document 3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 48 of 56
. - SCHEDULE A - 3 - DOCKET NO. 10
[ Hawaii Medical Service Association v. Chas. Pfizer Civil Action& Co., Inc., et al. (E.D. Pa., No. 68 Civ. 2799) No. 69 Civ. 838
Sidney Hillman Medical Center of the Male Apparel Civil Action
Industry of Philadelphia v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., No. 68 Civ. 4321
Inc., et al. (E.D. Pa., No. 68-162)
International Rectifier Corp.,	et al. v. American Civil Action
Cyanamid Co., et al. (C.D. Calif., No. 69-2484-HP) No. 70 Civ. 180
Keht Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., Civil Action
Inc., et al. (E.D. Pa., No. 68-384) No. 68 Civ. 4320
Bernard & Mark Lachman, et al. v. Chas. Pfizer Civil Action
& Co., Inc., et al. (Md., No. 20971) No. 69 Civ. 3522 :
Ralph Pfau, d/b/a Victor Pharmacy, et al. v. Civil Action
Chas. Pfizer & Co., Inc., et al. (S.D. Ind., No. 69 Civ. 4089
No. IP 69-C-367)
Chas. Pfizer & Co., Inc. v. Richlyn Laboratories Civil Action
Inc. (E.D. Pa., No. 42648) No. 69 Civ. 1315
Chas. Pfizer & Co., Inc. v. Zenith Laboratories, Civil Action
Inc., et al. (N.J., No. 936-63) No. 68 Civ. 4235
@ Teamsters Security Fund of Northern California, Civil ActionInc. v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., Inc., et al. (N.D. No. 69 Civ. 1629
Ccalif., No. 51010)
The Republic of Vietnam v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., Civil Action
Inc., et al. (N.D. Ill., No. 70 C 279) No. 70 Civ. 877
Carl F. Dodge & Marlea Dodge v. Chas. Pfizer & Civil Action
Co., Inc., et al. (N.D. Ill., No. 70 C 500) No. 70 Civ. 1306
Malcolm-Gregg Co., Inc., et al. v. Chas. Pfizer Civil Action
& Co., Inc., et al. (N.D. Calif., No. C-70-613WTS) No. 70 Civ. 1605
Thrifty Drug Stores Co., Inc., et al. v. Chas. Civil Action
Pfizer & Co., Inc., et al. (N.D. Calif., No. No. 70 Civ. 1604
70-502AAH)
Bernard Kay, et al. v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., Inc., Civil Action
et al. (S.D. Ohio, No. 70-76) No. 70 Civ. 1409
Valley Clerks Trust Fund v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., Civil Action
Inc., et al. (N.D. Calif., No. C-70-1294LHB) No. 70 Civ. 3157

Case MDL No. 10 Document3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 49 of 56
"SCHEDULE A — 4 - DOCKET NO. 10
[ San Francisco Culinary, Bartenders & Service Civil Action
Employees Welfare Fund v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., No. 70 Ciwv. 3158
Inc., et al. (N.D. Calif., No. C-70-1295ACW) ’
Retail Clerks Local 770 & Food Employers Benefit Civil Action
Fund, et al. v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., Inc., et al. No. 70 Civ. 3738
(N.D. Calif., No. C~70-1681ACW)
Bakers Health & Welfare Fund, et al. v. Chas. Civil Action
Pfizer & Co., Inc., et al. (N.D. Calif., No. No. 70 Civ. 3737
C-70-1680ACW)
Associated Life Insurance Co. v. Chas. Pfizer Civil‘Action
& Co., Inc., et al. (N.D. Ill., No. 70-C 368) No. 70 Civ. 1074
Richard X. Connors, et al. v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., Civil Action
Inc., et al. (E.D. Va., No. 70 Civ. 70-3) No. 70 Civ. 1073
The State of Oregon v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., Inc., Civil Action
et al. No. 68 Civ. 2370
Hoffa Medical Center v. American Cyanamid Co., Civil Action
et al. No. 69 Civ. 5632
The State of Kuwait v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., Inc., Civil Action
@ a No. 69 Civ. 4091
Edward Swayduck, et al. v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., Civil Action
: Inc., et al. No. 69 Civ. 5154
Union Health Center of New York, et al. v. Chas. Civil Action
Pfizer & Co., Inc., et al. No. 62 Civ. 2838
Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., Civil Action
Inc., et al. . : No. 69 Civ. 3294

Case MDL No. 10 Document 3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 50 of 56
BE BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL MULT TL a.ON SRE :
RE . MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
oo da 1201973	IN RE ANTIBIOTIC DRUGS ) oo b
ANTITRUST LITIGATION ) CRA 1D: . thet [ETAT
Pfizer Inc. v. International ) ARectifier Corp., et al., ) DOCKET NO. 10 oT
C.D.Cal., Civil Action )
No. 73-58-R )
: OPINION AND ORDER LL
- CL
BEFORE ALFRED P. MURRAH, CHAIRMAN, AND JOHN MINOR WISDOM,
EDWARD WEINFELD*, EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER,
: JOSEPH S. LORD, III, AND STANLEY A. WEIGEL, JUDGES OF THE PANEL
PER CURIAM
pfizer recently filed an action in the Central District
of California against International Rectifier and several of its
wholly owned subsidiaries and U.S.V. Pharmaceutical Corp. charging :
them with infringement of Pfizer's patent on doxvcycline, a broad
spectrum antibiotic sold under the trademark Vibramycin. Defend-
ants move the Panel for an order transferring this action for
inclusion in the ccordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
in this litigation before Judge Miles W. Lord in the District of :
: Minnesota. On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held, :
we find that this action should be transferred to the District of1/
Minnesota for pretrial proceedings. -
* Although Judge Weinfeld was unable to attend the Panel hearing,
he has, with the consent of all parties, participated in this
decision.
1/ pefendants move for transfer of this action to the Southern
District of New York. When Judge Lord was assigned the "non-settling"
actions in this litigation by the Panel, he received an intercircuit
assignment to the Southern District of New York to conduct the coor-
dinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Subsequently, Judge
Lord transferred all non-settling actions under Section 1404(a).,

Case MDL No. 10 Document3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 51 of 56
- 2 -
® Pfizer opposes transfer of this action on the ground
that the doxycycline product and patent are not involved in the
actions consolidated for pretrial proceedings in Minnesota.
It also asserts that the criteria for transfer of this action
under Section 1407 have not been satisfied and that International
Rectifier is attempting to use the statute to further its own
competitive interests.
There are, however, two significant aspects of the
doxycycline infringement action and the Minnesota pretrial
proceedings which favor transfer to Minnesota. First, the
antitrust allegations asserted as a defense to Pfizer's infringe-
ment action involve issues already raised in the so-called
"competitor actions" brought against Pfizer and others, which
@ are pending in the transferee court. To this extent, the doxy-
cycline action in California presents issues of fact common
to the proceedings in Minnesota. And, secondly, discovery
concerning the doxycycline patent and product, which will be
sought by defendants in the California infringement action,
is already progressing in the coordinated proceedings under order
of the transferee court in Minnesota. Transfer,
1/ except the so-called "competitor cases" and certain recently
filed actions, to the District of Minnesota for all purposes.
He also ordered that pretrial proceedings in all actions would be
conducted in Minneapolis and that all papers should be filed
in the District of Minnesota and would be treated, where necessary,
as if they were filed in the Southern District of New York, the
original transferee district. It is clear that unless Judge Lord
transfers the remaining actions to Minnesota under Section 1404 (a)
they will be remanded to the respective transferor districts
for trial at the conclusion of the pretrial proceedings. And
that is also true of this infringement action. We, therefore,
find it more expedient to transfer this action to Minnesota
for pretrial proceedings.

Case MDL No. 10 Document3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 52 of 56
- 3 ~-
@ therefore, will eliminate the possibility of duplicative discovery
proceedings, inconsistent pretrial rulings and conflicting
pretrial conferences. y
In addition, Pfizer intends to move for an order
preliminarily enjoining defendants from manufacturing and marketing
doxycycline. Although we recognize the complexity of this liti-
gation, we do not agree with plaintiff that, if its action is
transferred to Minnesota, its attempt to enforce its patent will
become "bogged down"in the consolidated proceedings. Rather,
we are convinced that the transferee judge, who has extensive
familiarity with the issues and the parties involved in this
litigation, is in the best position to schedule the necessary
discovery and to hear the motion for a preliminary injunction
® with a minimum of delay and inconvenience to all parties
‘concerned.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the action, Pfizer Inc.
v. International Rectifier Corp., et al., C.D.Cal., Civil Action
No. 73-58-R, be, and the same hereby is, transferred to the
District of Minnesota and assigned to the Honorable Miles W. Lord
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the
actions pending there, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407.
Po 2/ CE., In re Antibiotic Drugs Antitrust Litigation, 327 F. Supp.517 o»p.w.;.ooOoO0

Case MDL No. 10 Document 3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 53 of 56
: . : ! JEELIAL PATEL on TA
. : SEHEIET [REE Lo
FIED |
oo SEE BATH
DOCKET NO. 10, .
CO SATRIGIS DL sn
Co SLERR CF TET ens
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION .
IN RE ANTIBIOTIC DRUG LITIGATION
: ORDER REASSIGNING LITIGATION #%;At the request of Judge Miles W. Lord, the transferee i ‘!
judge in this litigation, it is hereby ordered that the actions ’
listed on the attached Schedule A bes and the same ars herabv,
reassigned to Judge Charles R. Weiner of the Eastern District :
of Pennsylvania sitting by designation in the District of :
Minnesota pursuant to 28 U.S C. §292(b) effective October 24, :
1977. _
FOR THEE DANEL:
| SI Wor Wisdom |	TJ Frm IAAL AS 1SAY }
John Minor Wisdom
Chairman :

Case MDL No. 10 Document 3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 54 of 56
. Schedule A ]
United States v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., Inc., Civil Action
et al. No. 4-71 Civ 403
United States v. American Cyanamid & Co. Civil Acticn
No, 4-74 Civ 36
C a { .Republic of Philippines	v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., Civil Action
Inc., et al. No. 4-72 Civ 312
Imperial Government of Iran v. Chas Pfizer & Co., Civil Action
Inc., et al. : No. 4-74 Civ 55
Government of India v. Chas. pfizer & Co., Inc., Civil Action
at al. No. 4-74 Civ 496
Government of Colombia v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., Civil Action
Inc., et al. No. 4-76 Civ 47
Republic of Germany (West) v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., Civil Action
Inc., et al. No. 4-74-Civ 5614
L. I. Edelson, et al. v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., Inc., Civil Action
et al. No. 4-72 Civ 134
Marvin Barkel v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., Inc., Civil Action
et al. . No. 4-71 Civ. 420

Case MDL No. 10 Document 3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 55 of 56
ae —- CT — . |
A | DOCKET NO. 10 4/11
CL BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION ro
© IN RE ANTIBIOTIC ANTITRUST LITIGATION o-s = :	\ od AE I cides
mA 22
Re: The State of Kuwait v. Pfizer, Inc., et al., 2% & [ZA
S. D. N. Y., Civil Action No. 78-2478 LE FE az ;
w BENS AI =
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AP 9 Fas
To All Counsel in the Above-Captioned Litigation = 2 = EN Po
It appearing that the above-captioned action periding L
in the Southern District of New York is a tag-along action Lo
: in the above-captioned litigation and it appearing that |several actions in this litigation have been transferred
to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania pursuant to
28 U.S.C.§ 1404(a) for the completion of pretrial
proceedings and trial,
IT IS ORDERED that the parties in the above-captioned
action show cause why this action should not be transferred
to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and assigned to
the Honorable Charles R. Weiner for coordinated or se
consolidated pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §1407
with the related actions now pending there.
FOR THE PANEL: :
= 0. AYO A ENJohn Minor Wisdom
Chairman
||

Case MDL No. 10 Document 3 Filed 04/27/15 Page 56 of 56
JUDICIAL PANEL ON oo
: LUE TICISTRICT LITIGATION i
FILED Pooo : DOCKET NO. 10
JUL 26 1978 —
: BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION (CRW) - :
PATRIGA DB, HOH ALIN RE ANTIBIOTIC DRUG ANTITRUST LITIGATIONCLERK OF THE PAMEL
The State of Kuwait v. Pfizer, Inc., et al.,	== 9LdLe Or Kuwait v. Pfizer, Inc., et al.
S.D. N.Y., C.A. No. 78-2478
ORDER Co
It appearing that no party to the above-captioned ST
action objects to its transfer for coordinated or con-
solidated pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §1407 with X
the actions pending in the above-captioned litigation in Ythe Eastern District of Pennsylvania before the Honorable “92Charles R. Weiner and the Panel having found, upon the ~
basis of the papers submitted, that these actions involve :
common questions of fact and that transfer would serve the :
convenience of the parties and witnesses and would further :
the just and efficient conduct of the litigation, -
| . IT IS ORDERED that the above-captioned action be, and RB) the same hereby is, transferred to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania and, with the consent of that court, is assigned
to the Honorable Charles R. Weiner for coordinated or con-~
} - solidated pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §1407 with the
- ~~ other actions in this docket and pending in that district. :
0 FOR THE PANEL:
John Minor Wisdom
Chairman :