IN RE: Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation

— Case MDL No. 323 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 1 of 23
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL AULTIISTRICT 1impar cE
ON Egy CATIONMULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION ; Co
if nw : : .
HAR -3 1313 :
IN RE FINE PAPER ANTITRUST LITIGATION ) DOGRER0 L. 323,	on pr: ~	ERC CF THz pas
OPINION AND ORDER AEE 3/3 78
BEFORE JOHN MINOR WISDOM*, CHAIRMAN, AND EDWARD WEINFELD*,
EDWIN A. ROBSON*, JOSEPH S. LORD, III, STANLEY A. WEIGEL, RE
ANDREW A. CAFFREY, AND ROY W. BARPER, JUDGES OF THE PANEL EEE -
PER CURIAM .
This litigation presently consists of fifteen actions
pending in eight federal districts: four in the Northern
District of Illinois; three each in the District of - E
Connecticut and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; and Capen
one each in the Southern District of Ohio, the District
of South Dakota, the Northern District of California, . :
the Southern District of New York, and the Western District EET
of Missouri. | |
The complaints in these actions basically allege that EE
from as early as 1965 until 1977, the defendants and various on
co-conspirators conspired at the mill level, in violation of ol :
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, to fix, raise, maintain and EEA
1/ . - . SE :
stabilize the price of fine paper and to eliminate inter- Co
* Judges wisdom, Weinfeld and Robson took no part in the
decision of this matter.
1l/ The complaints in this litigation generally describe oo
"fine paper" as follows: : : a
Fine paper means all types and kinds of business Co
and commercial printing and writing papers, converting SER
papers, and publication papers, including, but not Co
limited to, coated and uncoated bonds, off-set, carbon-
less, card stock, envelopes, tablets, form bonds, coated
book papers, and xerographic papers.

Case MDL No. 323 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 2 of 23 ©
and intra-brand competition among their wholesaler customers. EERE
All the actions were filed as purported class actions. While AE
: there are some variations in the descriptions of the classes Co
: sought, most are national classes of all, or some group of,
fine paper purchasers. The complaints name a total of sixteen :
defendants, including thirteen defendants that are named in =
all actions and one defendant that is named in fourteen actions.. Cy Co
A federal grand jury in the Eastern District of co
Pennsylvania currently is investigating possible antitrust a
violations in the manufacture, distribution and sale of
paper and paper products. No indictments have been -
returned, and the grand jury's investigation is continuing. ee
Additionally, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has recently [Tr
authorized its Boston Regional Office to investigate certain EE
2/ : SR
aspects	of the fine paper industry. en
2/ Many cf the parties before the Panel are in dispute over : . Cithe relevance of the FTC investigation to this litigation. Co
In the FTC's resolution directing the investigation and CL
authorizing use of compulsory process, the FTC said the investi- :
gation's purpose is to determine whether industry members may Ce
be engaged in acts and practices which may be in violation of EP
Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, including, but no RCE
not limited to, resale price maintenance and other vertical NEETU SEAS
restraints of trade in connection with the manufacture, sale, PL
and distribution of fine paper products in the United States. IE
See 820 Antitrust & Trade Reg. Rep. (BNA), at A-20 (Sept. 29, Coen
1977). :
The common defendants and one plaintiff contend that
because plaintiffs in the litigation before us have alleged a _
horizontal conspiracy at the mill level, the FTC investigation Co
of possible vertical restraints is not relevant to this Co EE
litigaticn. Po
The moving plaintiffs point out that the complaints in EE
this litigation allege that defendants engaged in a nationwide :
horizontal conspiracy at the mill level to fix the price of fine
paper and to eliminate inter- and intra-brand competition among
their wholesaler customers. These plaintiffs contend that the
FTC investigation is relevant to at least the allegations that
defendants conspired to eliminate competition. :

: * Case MDL No. 323 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page	3 of 23
® This litigation is before the Panel on the motion of
plaintiffs in twelve of the fifteen actions for transfer
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407 of all actions pending in
districts other than the District of Connecticut to that
district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
with the actions pending there. In the alternative, these
movants favor transfer to the Northern District of Illinois.
All other parties that have taken a position before the Panel,
except Crown Zellerbach Corporation, a defendant in three of
these actions, favor or do not oppose transfer. Various
parties either cross-move for or urge transfer to the
Southern District of Ohio, the Southern District of New York,
the Northern District of Illinois or the Eastern District
® of Pennsylvania.
We find that these actions involve common questions
of fact and that their transfer under Section 1407 to the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania will best serve the con-
venience of the parties and witnessass and prcmote the just
and efficient conduct of the litigation.
Although Crown Zellerbach is a defendant in actions in
three different districts, and does not state that it opposes
Section 1407 transfer in this litigation, this defendant never-
theless states that inclusion of the actions against it in
3/ ThePanel	has been advised that additional actions have
recently been filed in this litigation. These actions will
® pe treated as tag-along actions. See Rules 1, 9 and 10,	.P.J.P.M.L., .R.D. 253, 255, 259-60 (1975).

Case MDL No. 323 Document? _Filed 05/04/15 Page 4 of 23 : -
Section 1407 proceedings would involve it in protracted pro-
ceedings involving actions tc which Crown Zellerbach is not C
a party. Such a transfer, Crown Zellerbach asserts, would
unduly complicate and delay adjudication of the claims asserted
against it.
This argument is not persuasive. Similar, if not
identical, arguments have often been made to, and rejected
by, the Panel in other multidistrict antitrust litigation,”
and Crown Zellerbach here raises no novel considerations
or contentions. The extent of coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings, and the degree of any party's
participation in those proceedings, is, of course, a
matter solely within the discretion of the transferee
judge. In re Equity Funding Corporation of America ®Securities Litigation, 375 F. Supp. 1378, 1384 (J.P.M.L. -
1974).
The parties favoring transfer to the District of
Connecticut and those parties that urge transfer to the
Southern District of Ohio have each made detailed arguments
and analyses of the fine paper industry in an attempt to
demonstrate that -- in terms of the locations of defendants
principal places of business, the executive offices of
their fine paper divisions and/or defendants' fine paper
mills _— the center of gravity in this litigation is the
region surrounding and including, respectively,
4/ See, e.g., In re Sugar Industry Antitrust Litigation, [433 F. Supp. 1122, 1124-25 (J.P.M.L. 1977); 427 F. Supp.
1018, 1025, 1027 (J.P.M.L. 1977): In re Folding Carton
Antitrust Litigation, 415 F. Supp. 384, 386 (J.P.M.L. 1976).

- - Case MDL No. 323 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page	5 of 23
- 5 =
® Connecticut or Ohio. Each of these groups also maintains
that the transferee district that they favor would be a
convenient and readily accessible forum for the parties and
witnesses in this litigation. The parties urging transfer
to the Northern District of Illinois or the Southern District
of New York also stress the central location and easy
accessibility of those districts.
On the basis of the record before us, no district
emerges as clearly the most appropriate transferee forum
for this litigation. On balance, however, we conclude that
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is preferable. While
the precise scope of the grand jury investigation being
C conducted there is not presently known to the Panel, a subpoena
issued by that grand jury to at least one paper manufacturer
in November 1976 has been included in the record before the
>
Panel. A careful analysis of this subpoena reveals that it
sought a significant quantity and variety of documents relating
5/ Plaintiff in one of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
actions attached a copy of this subpoena to its papers before
the Panel. The subpoena was directed to Continental Group,
Inc., which is a defendant in In re Corrugated Container Anti-
trust Litigation, MDL-310, but is not a defendant in the actions
now before the Panel. This plaintiff also attached Continental's
response to a conditional transfer order issued by the Panel in
Corrugated Container in which Continental represents that ten
other paper manufacturers have been served by the grand jury
with similar subpoenas. Brief of Continental Group, Inc. at 9,
In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation, MDL-310
(J.P.M.L., filed January 16, 1978). It appears that at least
eight of these manufacturers are defendants in the litigation
now before us. See Margolies, U.S. Starts Tnguiry Into Paper
® Industry, Including Look at Possible Price-Fixing, Wall St. J.,	Nov. 26, 1976, at 2, col. 3.

Case MDL No. 323 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page	6 of 23 ’ ?
- 6 -
174
to the structure and operation of the paper industry. We ¢
are persuaded that, whether or not the Philadelphia grand
jury returns any indictments affecting any segment of the
paper industry, many of the documents subpoenaed by that
grand jury will be relevant to the actions now before us.
Transfer of this litigation to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania will therefore best facilitate any necessary
coordination between the private actions and the Government
proceedings occurring there. See, e.g., In re Corrugated
Container Antitrust Litigation, F. Supp. '
(J.P.M.L., filed November 29, 1977) (slip opinion at 6-7):
In re Hawaiian Hotel Room Rate Antitrust Litigation, 438
F. Supp. 935, 936 (J.P.M.L. 1977); In re Cement and Concrete
Antitrust Litigation, 437 F. Supp. 750, 752-53 (J.P.M.L. 1977). ®
Tn addition, should there eventually arise any need to coordinate
activities in this litigation with the FTC's investigation of
the fine paper industry pending in Boston, we observe that the
relatively close geographical accessibility of Philadelphia
to Boston will facilitate that coordination. See In re
6/ In Continental's response to the conditional transfer order
in Corrugated Container, Continental represents that it alone
already has produced approximately 10,000 documents to the Phila-
delphia grand jury pursuant to this subpoena. Brief of Continental
Group, Inc., supra at 9.
7/ We note that the court in the Eastern District of Pennsyl-
Vania has entered an order impounding all materials obtained
by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice in the
course of the Philadelphia grand jury investigation.

= Case MDL No. 323 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page	7 of 23
- 7 =~
) Plumbing Fixture Cases, 295 F. Supp. 33, 33-34 (J.P.M.L.
1968).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1407, the actions listed on the following Schedule A and
pending in districts other than the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania be, and the same hereby are, transferred to
that district and, with the consent of that court,
assigned to the Honorable Joseph L. McGlynn, Jr. for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with
the actions listed on Schedule A and pending there.
®
®

> - Case MDL No. 323 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page	8 of 23
MDL- 323 -- IN RE "FINE PAPER" ANTITRUST LITIGATION
® SCHEDULE A
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Herst Litho, Inc. v. Boise Cascade Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. 77-C-2563
Wallis L. Weinper and Pearl B. LaThomus Civil Action
d/b/a LaThomus & Co. v. Boise Cascade No. 77-C-3468
: Corp., et al.
The State of Illinois v. Boise Civil Action
Cascade Corp., et al. No. 77-C-4735
Campbell Office Supply Co., etc. v. Civil Action
Boise Cascade Corp., et al. No. 77-C-4759
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Copies Unlimited, Inc. v. Boise Civil Action
Cascade Corp., et al. No. C-1-429
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
State of Connecticut v. Boise Cascade Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. H-77-357
Phillip Meroney and Ruth Meroney v. Civil Action
9 Boise Cascade Corp., et al. No. H-77-517
William Fels t/a Fels Printing Co. v. Civil Action
Boise Cascade Corp., et al. No. H-77-542"
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
The Pengad Companies, Inc. v. Boise Civil Action
Cascade Corp., et al. No. 77-3352
Moses Jaroslawicz, etc. v. Boise Cascade Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. 77-3183
Joli Greeting Card Co., Inc. v. Boise Civil Action
Cascade Corp., et al. No. 78-171
DISTRICT OF SQUTH DAKOTA
State of South Dakota v. Boise Cascade Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. Civ~77-3034
NORTHERN DISTRICT CF CALIFORNIA
William Grader v. Boise Cascade Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. C77-2435-CBR

| Case MDL No. 323 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 9 of 23 Te
Schedule A -- MDL-323 -- p. 2
SOUTHERN DISTRICT CF NEW YORK @
Magazine Management Co., Inc. v. Boise Civil Action
Cascade Corp., et al. No. 77 Civ 5445
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
State of Missouri v. Boise Cascade Civil Action
Corp., et al. No. 77-4317-CvV-C

- Case MPbaNeT3R3. Bagument 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 10 of 23 |
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION	j:- 33) Lh	HELTETRILT UTR ATO bo
IN RE "FINE PAPER" ANTITRUST LITIGATION my Ya/2f
ORDER HAD -2 BR } ) oi .
On January 27,1978, the Panel held a hearing:	in’ this. :-- : ER
litigation concerning the transfer, pursuant tf 28 UISuC.	1
§1407, of fifteen actions pending in eight federal districts~
to a single federal district for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings. On February 21, 1978, the State
of Oregon moved the Panel to defer "for a reasonable time"
ruling on the question of transfer of this litigation.l/ Co
Oregon states that since the Panel's hearing on this matter, ~ CL
several states have either filed, or plan to file in the EEE
near future, complaints which are related to, but which i
expand the scope of, this litigation. Oregon represents that -
these complaints will broaden the scope of this litigation oo
" by, inter alia, naming as defendants not only those manu-
facturers named in the previously filed complaints already
considered by the Panel, but also certain "merchant houses”
which are wholesalers customers of these defendants. Oregon :
urges that the Panel defer ruling upon transfer in this
litigation until such time as all facets of this litigation ESA
are before the Panel, including any possible arguments which RBTIURS
may be raised in support of transfer to a district not yet ’ no
considered by the Panel. SE
On February 22, 1978, plaintiffs in eleven of the fifteen Co
actions considered by the Panel on January 27, 1978 opposed SE
Oregon's motion. These plaintiffs contend that Oregon has a
not presented any new facts to the Panel that would warrant BE
delaying the Panel's ruling in this litigation. These plaintiffs
point out that at the hearing on this matter the Panel was SE
informed by counsel that additional states contemplated filing
new actions. Those actions simply should be treated as tag-along EE
actions, these plaintiffs maintain. co
The Panel having found upon consideration of the papers Co BEE
submitted that no good cause has been shown for delaving the Ca
Panel's ruling and order of transfer in this litigation, RERETIRSEINE	EIS
IT IS ORDERED that the State of Oregon's motion for the EE.
Panel to defer ruling and order of transfer in this litigation Co
be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
FOR THE PANEL: -
Fi -	EE unl 3 i ea A : . Lo
Jo at : SE
Jonn Minor wisdom SE
Chairman
1l/ The State of Oregon filed a complaint in the District of
Oregon against numerous fine paper manufacturers on February 2,
1978, which of course was after the Panel heard this matter. f
oo |

se Case MDL No. 323 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 11 of 23 : |
: CUDIDIAL PANY pu EERE
- HULTZISTRICT Liao pT
: FILED
a IE RE i EE
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL (fhRCIA D, Fon EEEul LERK OF THz poss]
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE "FINE PAPER" ANTITRUST LITIGATION ) Docket No. 323 JF-323 .
7/0/78 | RS
State of Arizona v. Boise Cascade Corp., et al., EE -
D. Arizona, C.A.No. Civ-78-66-CAM “
Fred Ernst, etc., et al. v. Boise Cascade Corp., et al.,
N.D. California, C.A. No. C/8-0722-RHS
State of California v. Boise Cascade Corp., et al.,
N.D. California, C.A.No. C/8-0774=SW
State of Utah v. Boise Cascade Corp., et al., D. Utah, }
Sl C.A. No. C78=07131 aa
| OPINION AND ORDER phe
BEFORE JOHN MINOR WISDOM, CHAIRMAN, AND EDWARD WEINFELD, : i
EDWIN A. ROBSON, JOSEPH S. LORD, III, STANLEY A. WEIGEL, ; SE
ANDREW A. CAFFREY, AND ROY W. HARPER*, JUDGES OF THE : SR
PANEL : Lo
PER CURIAM I
On March 3, 1978 the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Co
§1407, transferred twelve actions to the Eastern District : BE
of Pennsylvania and, with the consent of that court, IEEE Sn
} assigned those actions to the Honorable Joseph L. REE
McGlynn, Jr. for coordinated or consolidated pretrial IER
proceedings with three actions already pending in that
%¥JUdge Harper took no part in the decision of this
matter. :

Case MDL No. 3282Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 12 of 23° "ol!
district. In re "Fine Paper" Antitrust Litigation, EE
446 F.Supp. 759 (J.P.M.L. 1978).Y Since that time, Co
the Panel has transferred twelve tag-along actions
to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for inclusion
in the Section 1407 proceedings pending there, and oo
Co some additional actions have been filed in that district. AEA
All the actions in the transferee district were filed 3
as purported class actions. While there are some variations
in the descriptions of the classes sought, most are
national classes of some group of fine paper purchasers. Co
I7 On the Same day that the Panel issued its opinion Co
and order transferring these actions, the Panel issued ER
an order concerning	.a motion brought by the State of ; CT
Oregon for the Panel	to defer ruling on the question Po
of transfer in this litigation "for a reasonable time." TT
In its motion, Oregon represented that subsequent to REI	INT SE
the Panel's original hearing on this matter, additional i ce
complaints	had been filed, and others:might soon be, Lo
) filed, which were r2lated to, but expanded the scope
of, this litigation by, inter alia, naming as defendants Eo ee
not only those manufacturers nomed in previously filed : : a
complaints, but also certain ''merchant nouses,' which SLL
are wholesaler customers of the manufacturer defend- CL Le
ants, Oregon urged that the Panel defer its ruling ATE
until such time as all facets of this litigation were EEE FERESE
before the Panel, including any arguments that might SEE
be raised in support of transfer to a district not
then considered by the Panel. The Panel found that no Co
good cause had been shown for delaying the Panel's
ruling and order of transfer of this litigation and,
accordingly, denied Oregon's motion. ;

’ ) Case MDL No. 323 Docugrent2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 13 of 23
® The complaints in most of the actions (mill actions)
in the transferee district basically allege that from
as early as 1965 until 1977 the defendants and various
co-conspirators conspired at the mill level, in violation
of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, to fix the price of
fine paper and to eliminate inter- and intra-brand
competition among their wholesaler customers. 2/ All
the complaints in these actions name as defendants
only companies (mills) that are engaged in the manufacture
and sale of fine paper.
C 2] The allegations of these complaints concerning thepurported elimination of competition among defendants’
wholesaler customers are basically as follows:
Defendants and co-conspirators employed threats
and other concerted action against merchant houses
to secure adherence to an aggregation of trade
restraints designed to minimize price discounting
and otherwise minimize intrabrand competition between
[mill] —owned and independent merchant houses, the
substantial terms of which were that:
(i) Merchant houses would sell fine paper at
regular bracket prices and discount terms
fixed by the defendants and co-conspirators;
and
(ii) Non-conforming merchant houses were systematically
eliminated as competitors.
These complaints allege that, as a result of these
activities, ''competition in the sale of fine paper
between the defendants and co-conspirators and between
[mill] ~owned and independent merchant houses has been
restrained."

Case MDL No. 323 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 14 of 23 ’ :
-4-
The complaints in seven of the actions in the trans-
feree district, filed by, respectively, the states
of Colorado, New Mexico, Nebraska, Oregon, Missouri, -
Pennsylvania and Arkansas (the merchant house actions)
include as defendants most of the mill defendants named
in the other actions in the transferee district. These
complaints, however, also name two paper trade associations
and a variety of '"mill-affiliated'" and "independent"
merchant houses 3/ as either defendants or co-conspirators.
The complaints in these actions include many of the
allegations involved in the complaints in the mill
actions in the transferee district, and, in addition, C
the complaints in the merchant house actions allege
that the conspiracy in the fine paper industry included
concerted action among the merchant house defendants
and the mill defendants to fix the price of fine paper,
to suppress and eliminate competition from independent
merchant houses, and to allocate governmental agency
customers and rig bids to these customers.
37 One of the movants now before the Panel draws the
Tollowing distinctions between '"mill-affilated" and
"independent' merchant houses: "An 'independent merchant
house' [unlike a 'mill-affiliated' merchant house]
is a merchant house which is not owned or controlled
by any mill and is not tied directly or indirectly
to the output of a single mill but, rather, typically
purchases paper from a number of different mills."
Motion to Vacate Conditional Transfer Order at 2 n.2,
In re "Fine Paper!" Antitrust Litigation, MDL-323 (J.P.M.L.,
filed April 1, 1978).

: ‘ Case MDL No. 323 Dogument2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 15 of 23
® The four actions nresently before the Panel were
commenced by, respectively, the states of Arizona,
California and Utah and by a private party, as class
actions. The state actions are each brought on behalf
of a class of all other political subdivisions within
the respective state, and the private party in the
fourth action basically seeks to represent a national
class of all non-governmental purchasers of fine paper.
Fach complaint names a variety of defendants, including
mills, mill-affiliated merchant houses and independent
merchant houses. Most of these mills, one of these
mill-affiliated merchant houses and one of these indeven-
C dent merchant houses are common defendants to all four
actions. All these common defendants, plus all the
other mills and some of tne other mill-affiliated
and independent merchant houses named	as defendants
in these four actions, are also named as defendants
in actions in tne transferee district. The complaint
in the Arizona action also specifically names as co-
conspirators the two paver trade associations named
as co-conspirators in the merchant house actions in the
transferee district and eleven merchant houses not
oreviously involved in any of the actions in the transferee
district. i
®

Case MDL No. 323 Document® -Filed 05/04/15 Page 16 of 23 ’ :
Except for the class action allegations,	the allega- Ctions of the complaints in the four actions now before
the Panel are very similar to those in the complaints .
in the merchant house actions now pending in the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.
Because these four actions appeared to involve
common questions of fact with the actions in the transferee
district, the Panel issued orders conditionally trans-
| ferring these actions to the Eastern District of Pennsyl-
vania. Two independent merchant house defendants af
have moved the Panel partially to vacate the conditional
transfer orders concerning those actions and to order
the separation and retention in the transferor districts
(or one of them) of the claims asserted in these four C
actions against the independent merchant house defendants.
Two additional independent merchant house defendantsd/
have similarly moved the Panel with respect to the
Arizona action only. Plaintiffs in these four actions
favor transfer of all claims in these actions to the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
47 One of these two movants is named as a defendant
in one of the merchant house actions in the transferee
district and as a co-conspirator in another of these .
actions. The other movant is named as a co-conspirator
in one of the merchant house actions in the transferee
district. .
5/ One of these two movants is named as a defendant
in two of the merchant house actions in the transferee
district and as a co-conspirator in three other merchant
house actions in the transferee district. The other
movant is named as a defendant in one merchant house
action in the transferee district.

) ’ Case MDL No. 323 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 17 of 23
® ”We find that the four actions before the Panel
share questions of fact with the actions previously
transferred to the Fastern District of Pennsylvania
| and that transfer of these four actions in their entirety
to that district under Section 1407 will best serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote
the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.
The defendants that object to inclusion of claims
against the independent merchant house defendants in
the Section 1407 proceedings vending in the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania arzue that whatever claims
the plaintiffs in the actions now before the Panel
o may have against these defendants will involve unique
questions of fact regarding the conduct of these varticular
defendants, and that these ocuestions of fact are not
involved in the "mill defendant” actions pending in
the transferree district. If the claims azainst the
independent merchant house defendants are separated
and retained in the districts in which the actions
now before the Panel were filed (or in one of those
districts), these parties contend, discovery concerning
these claims can proceed expeditiously and relatively
inexpensively, without being encumbered by the substantially
broader pretrial »nroceedings vending in the transferee
® district.

Case MDL No. 323 Documegt?2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 18 of 23 : :
| The opponents of transfer also argue that inclusion Cof the claims against them in Section 1407 proceedings
would unduly complicate those proceedings and result
in prejudice to the independent merchant houses. The
opponents of transfer maintain that the independent
merchant houses may be included in several of the plaintiff
classes which are being sought in the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania. These parties assert that independent
merchant house defendants, as major buyers of fine
paper products, have interests clearly in conflict
with the mill defendants and that inclusion of the
claims against the independent merchant houses in the
Section 1407 proceedings would unnecessarily create
severe manageability problems for the parties and the ®
transferee judge. Some parties assert that the plaintiffs’
and defendants' initial organizational efforts in the
transferee district already have been severely hamstrung
by the presence of claims against the independent merchant
houses. Some of the opponents of transfer maintain
that any coordinaton of discovery or other pretrial
proceedings that may become necessary involving the
claims against the independent merchant houses and -
the actions pending in the transferee district can
be accomplished by appropriate orders issued by the
involved courts.
®

: : Case MDL No. 323 Documeni 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 19 of 23
® The two indevnendent merchant house defendants that
nave moved the Panel partially to vacate the conditional
transfer orders in all Tour actions before the Panel
suggest as an alternative approach that the Panel establish
a second transferee district in the Western United
States for Section 1407 proceedings concerning claims
. . X 6
against the indevendent merchant house defendants.2’
We do not find these arguments persuasive. Initially,
we note that the actions now before the Panel and the
merchant house actions in the transferee district
involve, either as defendants or as named co-conspirators,
many of the same mill-arfiliated merchant houses and
o independent merchant houses, as well as all the same
mills. Indeed, three of the four movants are already
defendants in the transferee district, and the fourth
is a named co-conspirator there. And although we rescoznize
that tne actions now before the Panel and the actions
6/ These vnarties also state tnat
[a] final alternative approach which may be
suggested is consolidation of the four western actions
in their entiretv in a Western transferee district.
That alternative is distinctly less desirable because
it would not achieve separation of the claims against
the independent merchant house defendants and avoid
the conflict described above. However, that course
would at least zain some of the convenience benefits
and allow the oretrial Judge to minimize the conflict
oroblems, without the confusion which would flow
from a consolidation of Western actions with 28	< . 1,
C other cases which would treat the independent merchant	houses as plaintiffs rather than derendants.
Motion To Vacate Conditional Transfer Orders at 1C
n.A, In re "Fine Paper" Antitrust Litigation, MDL-323
(J.P.M.L., filed ray 1lz, 1978).

Case MDL No. 323 Docuh@+2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 20 of 23 : ®
in the transferee district involve some different defend- C
ants and some dissimilar factual issues, we are convinced
that all claims in all actions in this litigation share
numerous substantial cuestions of fact concerning whether
there has been a conspiracy to engage in restrictive
trade practices, including price fixing, in the fine
paper industry, and if so, who took part in this illegal
conduct and who was affected by it. Thus Section 1407
transfer of each entire action now before us 1s necessary
in order to prevent duplicative discovery and eliminate
any possibility of conflicting class and other vretrial
rulings. In particular, we observe that some of the
surported classes in the transferee district are broad Cenough to encompass all the purported class members
in the actions now before us.
He find no merit in the argument that the allegedly
conflicting interests of the independent merchant nouses
and the other parties in the transferee district make
Section 1407 transfer of the claims in these four actions
against the independent merchant nouses inappropriate.
This alleged conflict 1s already before the transferee
court because, as we have noted, all four moving independent
merchant house defendants in the actions now before
us are already defendants or named as a co-conspirator
in the transferee district. In a recent decision we were
faced with the question of whether to transfer a tag-along o
action that named as a defendant a member of a plaintiff class

: : Case MDL No. 323 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 21 of 23
-11-
in previously established Section 1407 proceedings.
In re Sugar Industry Antitrust Litigation, 437 F.Supp.
1204 (J.P.M.L. 1977). Similarly, in another recent
decision we were confronted with the issue of whether
to transfer a tag-along action that involved purported
class members who were defendants in previously established
Section 1407 proceedings. In re Corrugated Container
Antitrust Litigation, 4L7 F.Supp. 468 (J.P.M.L. 1978).
In both instances, we determined that the purposes
of Section 1407 would best be furthered by assigning
all actions to a single transferee judge who would
C be in the best position, by becoming familiar© with all aspects and nuances of the litigation, to
protect the rights of all concerned, while at the same
time streamlining the entire pretrial process. 1d. -
at L70-71; In re Sugar Industry Antitrust Litigation,
supra, A437 F.Supp. at 1206-08. In In re Corrugated
Container Antitrust Litigation we emphasized that
any antagonistic interests among the parties in the
various actions may be accommodated by the transferee
judge in designing the pretrial program. See ...
In re Delta Airlines Crash at Boston, Massachusetts,
395 F.Supp. 1405, 1407 (J.P.M.L. 1975); In re Franklin
National Bank Securities Litigation, 393 F.Supp.
1093, 1095 (J.P.M.L. 1975). And discovery
on any issues unique to [any action or party] may
be scheduled by the transferee judge to proceed
® in a separate discovery schedule concurrently with	discovery on common issues. See In re Republic
National-Realty Equities Securities Litigation,
382 F.Supp. 1403, 1405-06 (J.P.M.L. 1974).

Case MDL No. 323 Documgyg-2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 22 of 23 = ®
In re Corruczated Container Antitrust Litigation, suonra, ®
4L7 F.Supp. at L71, cuoting Irom In re Beef Industrv
Antitrust Litieation, 432 F.Supp. 211, 213 (J.P.I.L. 1977).
The ovponents of transfer here have raised no significant
considerations or arguments not already carefully consi-
dered by the Panel in the Corruzated Container and
Sugar litigations, and we discern no reason why those
decisions should not be followed in the oresent litigation.
We note, of course, that the objectors to transfer
need not participate in pretrial proceedings unrelated
to tne claims against them. See, e.g., In re Airport
Car Rental Antitrust Litization, 448 F.Supp. 273, 275
(J.P.I1.L. 1978); Manual for Complex Litigation, CParts I and II, §§2.31 (rev. ed. 1977).
IT IS TEEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1L07, the actions entitled State ofArizona	v. soise
Cascade Corn.,et al., D. Arizona, C.A. No. Civ-78-66-CAM;
rred Ernst, etc., eft al. v. Bolse Cascade Corn.,et al.,
7.0. California, C.A. Fo. 078-0722-RES; State	of California
v. 20ise Cascade Corn., et al., I.D. California, C.A.
No. C78-0774-3VW; and State of Utah v. Boise Cascade
Corp., et al., D. Utah, C.A. No. C78-03131, be, and
®

«oT Case MDL No. 323 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 23 of 23
-13~
® the same hereby are, transferred to the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania and, with the consent of that court,
assigned to the Honorable Josepn L. McGlynn, Jr. for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with
the actions already pending there.
®
®