IN RE: Protection Devices and Equipment and Central Station Protection Service Antitrust Cases

Case MD i
L No. ° Document 2 Filed 04/27/15 Page 1 of 14
. LE -
| Docket No. 9 Loma RB	Talia
EER BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON bnMULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION REC
mca foo ote B
pel EEICE ERAN
: PROTECTION DEVICES AND EQUIPMENT i A :
RT AND CENTRAL STATION PROTECTION TreasonETRE SERVICE ANTITRUST CASES oo
ERE MEMORANDUM AND ORDER TRANSFERRING CIVIL ACTIONS -to UNDER SECTION 1407, TITLE 28 UNITED STATES CODE LoTO THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -
. oo On July 17, 1968, the Panel sua sponte issued an order
BERR to show cause why the within litigation should not be transferred
FEE E to one United States district court for coordination and consoli- .
Le dation of pretrial proceedings. Title 28, United States Code, :
cr Section 1407. The order was directed to all parties in the then
pending civil treble damage antitrust litigation and was heard :
g : on August 8, 1968 by the Panel.
There are presently pending a total of 80 different
cases in seven different districts. Of these, four were filed
_ after the order of July 18, 1968. All of these cases have a
do common genesis in a civil action by the United States against :
oo IE some or all of the present defendants brought in the United
states District Court for the District of Rhode Island. That -
ol action charged defendants with violations of Sections 1 and 2
of the Sherman Act and sought injunctive relief and divestiture.
Relief was granted. United States Vv. Grinnell Corporation, et
al., 236 F. Supp- 244 (R. I., 1964). The holding was affirmed
on appeal, but the case was remanded for a reshaping of the

Case MDL No. 9 Document2 Filed 04/27/15 Page	2 of 14
®
decree. 384 U. S. 563 (1966). On July 11, 1967, Judge
Wyzanski, sitting by assignment, entered a modified order.
effective November 1, 1967. It is this final decree which
forms the common basis for the present litigation.
Of the 80 pending cases, 63 are pending in the Southern
District of New York, including a consumer action by the United
States which was transferred from the District of Rhode Island
on defendants' motion. All of these cases have been assigned
under that court's Local Rule 2 to the Hon. Charles M. Metzner
for pretrial management and for trial.
All of the cases, not only those pending in the
@ Southern District of New York, but also those pending in the six
| other districts, have common questions of fact relating to con-
spiracy and economic factors. The complaints are essentially
identical, charging violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sher-
man Act. It appears that most of the relevant documents are
in New York and most of the defendants have their principal
offices there. There is no serious question that New York
would be at least as, if not more convenient than any other
district for pretrial discovery. Indeed, at least three actions
commenced in Detroit were transferred to New York by stipulation
for this reason. Document production has already commenced in
New York. Because of the fact that pretrial proceedings have
already started in New York, Judge Metzner has acquired a degree
» CL

Case MDL No.9 Document2 Filed 04/27/15 Page	3 of 14
® |
of familiarity with the litigation which could only be achieved
by another judge through duplication of judicial effort. Since
approximately 79% of the cases are now pending in New York, the
consolidation of the other cases in that court will constitute
a relatively insignificant burden which Judge Metzner is willing
to assume.
For all of the foregoing reasons, we have concluded
that, with one exception noted below, the transfer of cases pend-
ing elsewhere than in the Southern District of New York to Judge
Metzner in that District for coordination and consolidation of
pretrial procedures will be for the convenience of parties and
® witnesses and will promote the just and efficient conduct of
the actions.
Determination of all matters involving questions of
class actions shall be left to the sound judgment of Judge
Metzner.
The exception referred to above is Robinson Electronic
Supervisory Co. v. Grinnell Corporation, et al., E. D. Pa.,
Civil Action No. 27961. In that case, discovery has been sub-
stantially completed under the supervision of Judge Alfred L.
Luongo, and the case is close to being ready for trial. No
point would be served by its transfer, and it will therefore
not be included in our oder.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the treble damage actions
® Lo

Case MDL No.9 Document2 Filed 04/27/15 Page	4 of 14
pending in districts other than the Southern District of New
York and listed in Schedule A hereto attached be, and they are
hereby, transferred on the initiative of the Panel under Section
1407 of Title 28, United States Code, to the Honorable Charles
M. Metzner of the Southern District of New York, all with the
consent in writing of the transferee court attached hereto.
FOR THE PANEL:
x), ( Ly “-L Member
- 4 -

Case MDL No. 9 Document 2 Filed 04/27/15 Page 5 of 14
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
PROTECTION DEVICES AND EQUIPMENT ]
AND CENTRAL STATION PROTECTION
SERVICE CASES
CONSENT OF TRANSFEREE COURT
UNDER SECTION 1407, TITLE 28, U,S,C.
The United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York does hereby consent to the transfer under Section
1407, Title 28, U.S.C., of multidistrict civil treble damage
[) antitrust actions involving Protection Devices and Equipment
and Central Station Protection Service to the Honorable Charles
M. Metzner of said District.
ENTER:
ra co
é / .
SidAéy Sugayman
Chief Judge
Date: pe, v /761

Case MDL No. 9 Document 2 Filed 04/27/15 Page 6 of 14
® Schedule A
1. United States v. Grinnell Corporation, et al., S.D.N.Y., 65 Civ. 2486
2. Federated Department Stores, Inc, Vv. Grinnell Corporation, et al.,
S.D.N.Y. 67 Civ. 2249
3. R. H. Macy &Co.,	Inc. v. Grinnell Corporation, et al., S.D.N.Y.,
67 Civ. 2258
4. City Stores Co., et al. v. Grinnell Corporation, et al., S.D.N.Y.
67 Civ. 2259
5. Russ Togs, Inc., et al. v. Grinnell Corporation, et al., S.D.N.Y.,
67 Civ. 2594
6. Interstate Department Stores, Inc., et al. v. Grinnell Corporation,
et al., S.D.N.Y. 67 Civ. 2595
7. Swank, Inc. v. Grinnell Corporation, et al., S.D.N.Y. 67 Civ. 2596
8. Associated Dry Goods Corporation, et al. v. Grinnell Corporation,
et al., S.D.N.Y., 67 Civ. 2606
@ 9. Gimbel Brothers, Inc., et al. v. Grinnell Corporation, et al., S.D.N.Y.,	67 Civ. 2610
10. The May Department Stores Company v. Grinnell Corporation, et al.,
et al., S.D.N.Y., 67 Civ. 2612
11. Zale Corporation, et al. v. Grinnell Corporation, et al., S.D.N.Y.,
67 Civ. 2615
12. Allied Stores Corporation, et al. v. Grinnell Corporation, et al.,
S.D.N.Y. 67 Civ. 2615
13. Berkey Photo, Inc., et al. v. Grinnell Corporation, et al., S.D.N.Y.
67 Civ. 2621
14. Spartans Industries, Inc., et al. v. Grinnell Corporation, et al.,
S.D.N.Y. 67 Civ. 2622
15. Howard Harlem, Inc., et al. v. Grinnell Corporation, et al., S.D.N.Y.
67 Civ. 2940
16. W. T. Grant Co. v. Grinnell Corporation, et al., S.D.N.Y., 67 Civ. 3820
17. Lerner Stores Corp., et al. v. Grinnell Corporation, et al., S.D.N.Y.
67 Civ. 4433

Case MDL No. 9 Document 2 Filed 04/27/15 Page 7 of 14
-2 -
18. McCrory Corporation v. Grinnell Corporation, et al., S.D.N.Y.
67 Civ. 4719
19. S. Klein Department Stores, Inc. Vv. Grinnell Corporation, et al.,
S.D.N.Y. 67 Civ. 4720
20. Federal's Inc. v. Grinnell Corporation, et al., S.D.N.Y., 68 Civ. 573
21. Arlan's Dept. Stores, Inc., et al. v. Grinnell Corporation, et al.,
S.D.N.Y. 68 Civ. 574
22. Cunningham Drug Stores, Incorporated, et al. v. Grinnell Corporation,
et al., S.D.N.Y. 68 Civ. 659
23. Zayre Corp., et al. v. Grinnell Corporation, et al., S.D.N.Y. 68 Civ. 2361
24. Smith Detective Agency & Nightwatch Service, Inc. v. American District
Telegraph Co., et al., S.D.N.Y. 67 Civ. 2241
25. McCane-Sondock Protection Systems, Inc. v. American District Telegraph
Co., et al., S.D.N.Y. 67 Civ. 2241
() 26. Federal Engineering	Co., Inc. v. American District Telegraph Co., et al.,	S.D.N.Y. 67 Civ. 2242
27. Call's Police Signal Corp. v. American District Telegraph Co., et al.,
S.D.N.Y. 67 Civ. 2243
28. Merchants Police Alarm Corp. v. American District Telegraph Co.,
et al., S.D.N.Y. 67 Civ. 2244
29. Michigan Burglar Alarm Systems, Inc., et al. v. American District
Telegraph Co., et al., S.D.N.Y. 67 Civ. 2245
30. Automatic Alarm Corp. v. American District Telegraph Co., et al.,
S.D.N.Y. 67 Civ. 2246
31. Brink's, Incorporated, et al. v. Grinnell Corporation, et al., N.D. Ill.
66 Civ. 2125
32. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Grinnell Corporation, et al., N.D. I11 67 Civ. 776
33. Western Auto Supply Co. v. Grinnell Corporation, et al., N.D. Ill
67 Civ. 918
34. Montgomery Ward & Co.	v. Grinnell Corporation, et al., N.D. I11.
67 Civ. 1167
35. Stackler Enterprises v. American District Telegraph Company, et al.,
¢o N.D. Ill. 68 Civ. 331

Case MDL No. 9 Document 2 Filed 04/27/15 Page 8 of 14
- 3 -
_ 36. Pizitz, Inc., et al. v. American District Telegraph Co., et al.,N.D. Ala. 67 Civ. 471
38. The Grand Union Company v. Grinnell Corporation, et al., S.D.N.Y.
68 Civ. 2509 :
39. Hutzler Brothers Co. v. Grinnell Corporation, et al., S.D.N.Y. 68 Civ. 2669
40. J. C. Penney Company v. Grinnell Corporation, et al., S.D.N.Y.
68 Civ. 2670
41. Cartier, Inc. v. Grinnell Corporation, et al., S.D.N.Y. 68 Civ. 2671
42. Robert Hall Clothes, Inc., et al. v. Grinnell Corporation, et al.,
S.D.N.Y. 68 Civ. 2722
43. Su Crest Corporation, et al. v. Grinnell Corporation, et al., S.D.N.Y.
68 Civ. 2723
44. Snyder Drug Stores, Inc. v. Grinnell Corporation, et al., S.D.N.Y.
68 Civ. 2741
45. Aldens, Inc. v. Grinnell Corporation, et al., S.D.N.Y. 68 Civ. 2742
[ 46. Gamble-Skogmo, Inc. v. Grinnell Corporation, et al., S.D.N.Y. 68 Civ. 274347. Shoppers World Midway Corp., et al. v. Grinnell Corporation, et al.,
S.D.N.Y. 68 Civ. 2744
48. The State of New York v. Grinnell Corporation, et al., S.D.N.Y.
68 Civ. 2765
49. The Port of New York Authority v. Grinnell Corporation, et al.,
S.D.N.Y. 68 Civ. 2766
50. Supermarkets General Corporation, et al. v. Grinnell Corporation, et al.,
S.D.N.Y. 68 Civ. 2774
51. Hart Schaffner & Marx, et al. v. Grinnell Corporation, et al.,
S.D.N.Y. 68 Civ. 2775
52. American Consumer Industries, Inc., et al. v. Grinnell Corporation,
et al., S.D.N.Y. 68 Civ. 2776
53. Shoe Corporation of America v. Grinnell Corporation, et al., S.D.N.Y.
68 Civ. 2793
54. Rapid American Corporation v. Grinnell Corporation, et al., S.D.N.Y.
68 Civ. 2794
C 55. The B. V. D. Company, Inc., et al. v. Grinnell Corporation, et al.,	S.D.N.Y. 68 Civ. 2795

Case MDL No. 9 Document 2 Filed 04/27/15 Page 9 of 14
. - 4 -
® 56. The Certified Alarm & Signal Company v. Grinnell Corporation, et al.,S.D.N.Y. 68 Civ. 2556
57. Gerson Zimmerman d/b/a Ace of Spades Burglar Alarm Co. Vv. Grinnell
Corporation, et al., S.D.N.Y. 68 Civ. 2557
58. Protection Alarms, Inc. v. Grinnell Corporation, et al. S.D.N.Y.
68 Civ. 2558
59. Bay Alarm Company v. Grinnell Corporation, et al., S.D.N.Y. 68 Civ. 2559
60. Apex Signal Service Division of Apex Genie, Inc. v. Grinnell Corporation,
et al., S.D.N.Y. 68 Civ. 2560
61. Peter J. Newmann d/b/a Albany Protective Service	v. Grinnell
Corporation, et al., S.D.N.Y. 68 Civ. 2561
62. Thomas DeLaRue, Inc. v. Automatic Fire Alarm Company of Delaware,
et al., S.D.N.Y. 68 Civ. 2647
63. Pacific Fire Extinguisher Company v. American District Telegraph
Company, et al., S.D.N.Y. 68 Civ. 2746
64. Owl Protective Company, Inc. (N.Y.) v. Grinnell Corporation, et al.,
S.D.N.Y. 68 Civ. 2779
65. Owl Protective Company, Inc. (Pa.) v. Grinnell Corporation, et al.,
S.D.N.Y. 68 Civ. 2780
66. Imperial Products Company, Inc. v. Grinnell Corporation, et al.,
S.D.N.Y. 68 Civ. 2781
67. Central Office Alarm Company, Inc. Vv. Grinnell Corporation, et al.,
S.D.N.Y. 68 Civ. 2782
68. Damon Alarm Corporation, et al. v. American District Telegraph
Company, et al., S.D.N.Y. 68 Civ. 2789
69. Walworth Company, et al. v. Grinnell Corporation, et al., S.D.N.Y.
68 Civ. 2828
70. Silberman Fur Corporation, et al. v. Holmes Electric Protection
Company, S.D.N.Y. 68 Civ. 2829
71. Manhattan-Ward, Inc., et al. v. Grinnell Corporation, et al., E.D. Pa.,
C.A., 68-1489
72. City of Detroit,	et al. v. Grinnell Corporation, et al., E.D. Pa.,
C.A. 68-1478
[ 73. 1225 Vine Street Building, Inc., et al. v. Grinnell Corporation, et al.,	E.D. Pa., C.A. 68-1479

Case MDL No. 9 Document 2 Filed 04/27/15 Page 10 of 14
® TT
74. Associated Barr Stores, Inc., et al. v. Grinnell Corporation,
et al., E.D. Pa., C.A, 68-1490
75. Rhodes Western v. Grinnell Corporation, et al., N.D. Calif.,
Civ. 49577
76. Security Protective Alarms, Inc., et al. v. American District
Telegraph Company, W.D. N.Y., Civ. 1968-210

Case MDL No. 9 Document 2 Filed 04/27/15 Page 11 of 14
A797 Pdagr 6H
EE ne
| ol | FILED oSTE THE JUDICIAL PANEL i
Cr ON NOV 14 1968 iEERE HMCLTIDISTRICT LITIGATION . JUDICIAL PANEL ZOR wwe- EA MULTIDIST ERE,	PER y ame
FOVISIZrAL SE
IN RE MULTIDISTRICT CIVIL ANTITRUST ACTIONS) a
INVOLVING PROTECTION DEVICES AND EQUIPMENT ) DOCKET NO. ¢ : CE
- AND CERTRAL STATION PROTECTION SERVICES ) maa
IEEE OPINION AND ORDER TRANSFERRING CIVIL ACTIONS
IS he UNDER SECTION 1407, TITLE 28, UNITED STAILS CODD }ET : TG THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Co
N Lo BEFORE ALFRED P. MURRAH AND JOHN MINOR WISDOM, CIRCUIT JUDGES, AWD
- cl EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER, AND JOSEPH S.
SEER LORD, III, AND STAWLEY A. WEIGEL, DISTRICT JUDGES REN
EE : PER CURTAM ;
Co. On July 17, 1968, the Panel sua sponte issued an order to :
E show cause why the above-captioned litigation should not be consoli- :
dated in one district court for pretrial proceedings. The order was :
. directed to all parties in actions which were known to the Panel at }
that time. A hearing was held on August 8, 1968. On October 3, 1968, :
EEE the Panel ordered all actions not already pending in the Southern :
- I District of New York transferred to that district and assigned to
the Honorable Charles M. Metzner with the consent of the chief judge
of that court. In re Protection Devices and Protection Service Anti- i
trust Cases, ____ TF. Supp. (Judicial Panel on i{ultidistrict -
Litigation, 1968). :

Case MDL No. 9 Document 2 Filed 04/27/15 Page 12 of 14
®
- 2 =
The four cases listed on Schedule B were excluded from
that order as they had not been included in the original show
cause order. Pursuant to a show cause order entered on October 9,
1968, a hearing was held on October 18, 1963 to consider transfer
B of these four cases to the Southern District of New York or to
another district or districts for the conduct of pretrial pro-
ceedings.
Counsel for plaintiffs in the ew Jersey action do not
oppose transfer to the Southern District of New York and all
defendants in all four cases favor such a transfer.
® Counsel for the plaintiff States in the three actions now
pending in the Northern District of Illinois did not appear at the
hearing but advised the Panel that they oppose transfer of these
cases to the Southern District of New York relying on the briefs
filed, and the arguments previously made by them in opposition to
the original transfer. We have reviewed the briefs and the
transcript of the August 8, 1968 hearing and remain convinced that
the consolidation of all these cases in the Southern District of
liew York "will be for the convenience of parties and witnesses and
will promote the just and efficient conduct of the actions."
PF. Supp. at.
IT IS THERLFORE ORDLERLEZ that the treble damage actions
® listed in Schedule £ hereto attached be, and they are hereuy
;

Case MDL No. 9 Document 2 Filed 04/27/15 Page 13 of 14
am 3 _ .
transferred on the initiative of the Panel under 28 U.S.C. 81407
to the Southern District of liew York and with the consent of that
court heretofore filed with the Clerk of the Panel, assigned to
the lionorable Charles MM. Metzner of said court.
Attachment

Case MDL No. 9 Document 2 Filed 04/27/15 Page 14 of 14
Schedule B
DISTRICL OF NEW JERSEY
Electro Protective Corp., et al. Civil Action
v. No. 763-68
Grinnell Corporation, et al.
HORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINGIS
State of Connecticut Civil Action
Vv. to. 68C-16562
Grinnell Corporation, et al.
State of ilarvland Civil Action
v. lio. 63C-1663
Grinnell Corporation, et al.
® State of New Jersey Civil Actionv. No. G8C-1667
Grinnell Corporation, et al.