IN RE: Unisys Corp. Long-Term Disability Plan "ERISA" Litigation

TR _Case MDL No. 938 Document 13 Filed 05/18/15 Page 1 of 3
JUDICIAL PANEL ON
PENLIETRICT LITIGATION
Fen
o . U3 12 2
PARC Oo Lenni	r 4 CL RK Cr oc TANT
DOCKET NO. 938 - ne
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE UNISYS CORP. LONG-TERM DISABILITY PLAN ERISA
LITIGATION _ |
BEFORE JOHN F. NANGLE, CHAIRMAN, S. HUGH DILLIN,"
MILTON POLLACK, LOUIS H. POLLAK, ROBERT R. MERHIGE, JR., :
| AND WILLIAM B. ENRIGHT, JUDGES OF THE PANEL
TRANSFER ORDER
This litigation presently consists of two actions, one action each pending in the Eastern
District of New York and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Defendants Unisys Corporation
(Unisys), Unisys Long-Term Disability Plan (the Unisys plan) and Travelers Insurance Company
move the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407, for an order centralizing the two actions in the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiff
in the Pennsylvania action supports the motion. Plaintiff in the New York action opposes the ~
motion.
On the basis of the papers filed,’ the Panel finds that the two actions in this litigation
involve common questions of fact and that centralization under Section 1407 in the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania will best serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote
the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Common factual questions arise because the two :
actions present parallel claims brought on behalf of participants in the Unisys plan whose
disability benefits have been reduced as a result of Social Security disability benefits paid to their
dependents. Centralization under Section 1407 is thus necessary in order to eliminate duplicative
discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (especially with respect to class certifications),
and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.
We are persuaded that the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is the appropriate transferee
forum for this docket. We note that 1) many relevant witnesses and documents will be found
* Judge Dillin took no part in the decision of this matter.
' The parties waived oral argument and accordingly the question of Section 1407 transfer was
submitted on the briefs. Rule 17, R.PJ.P.ML.. 120 F.R.D. 251, 262 (1988).

Case MDL No. 938 Document	13 Filed 05/18/15 Page 2 of 3 to .
+ ®at or near Unisys’s headquarters in that district; and 2) the action pending there is more
advanced than the New York action.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407, the action listed on
the attached Schedule A and pending in the Eastern District of New York be, and the same
hereby is, transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and, with the consent of that court,
assigned to the Honorable Ronald L. Buckwalter for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings with the action pending in that district and listed on Schedule A.
FOR THE PANEL:
John F. Nangl
Chairman

- Case MDL No. 938 Document 13 Filed-05/18/15 Page 3 of 3
C SCHEDULE A
ADL-938 -- In re Unisys Corp. Long-Term Disability Plan "ERISA" Litigation
Eastern District of New York
John McFeeley, etc. v. Unisys Corp., et al.,
C.A. No. 9:91-4628
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
John B.G. Roberts, III, etc. v. Unisys Corp., et al.,
C.A. No. 2:91-1359
@®
C .