IN RE: Master Key Antitrust Litigation

Case MDL No. 45 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1 of 9
io. - 1
Te ‘ DOCKET NO. 45 : LE ST
. pai oxnot i . CL	. \ CVA Ao RE oo
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT reine o sma	wth Toa RENEE
RE A ae SERIE
yy SC
Re: Master Key Antitrust Litigation WN © °	I
pol en
| h ROMyeppORDER DECLINING TRANSFER oh a OF
It appearing from the responses of the parties to the Lee
order to show cause of April 20, 1970 that the convenience EE TTI
of the parties and their witnesses would not be served nor ESI
the just and efficient conduct of this litigation promoted Slate
by the transfer	at the present time of any of these actions . : EE
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings under :
28 U.S.C. §1407,	no transfer will be ordered at this time.
This order is entered without prejudice to the right of any Co
party to move for transfer under section 1407 (c) (i) nor 0
does it preclude later reconsideration by the Panel on its a
crown initiative under section 1407	(c) (i). CT
Co FOR THE PANEL: EE RRR
{oo All Ann IER
: . a. Rifred P. Murrah oo :
Chairman : oo

Case MDL No. 45 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 2 of 9
= J -
CR : :
® DOCKET NO. 45 - ° SCHEDULE A
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS oo
. State of Connecticut v. Eaton Yale & Towne, Civil Action
Inc., et al. : No. 70 C 591
: EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ’
City of Philadelphia v. Emhart Corp., ‘civil Action
et al. : ~ ~~ No. 70-352
: Amherst Leasing Corp. v. Emhart Corp., ‘ Civil Action
: et al. CL . No. 70-494 ]
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
Morgan Supply Company Vv. P and F Corbin civil Action
et al. oo So No. FS-68-C-39

Case MDL No. 45 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 3 of 9
a CIA ie) Ce Ce
‘ MULTE : Lo
THE JUDICIAL PANEL j Co Co
ON cI
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION JETT eT ETO
IN RE MASTER KEY ANTITRUST) Cele | FE
LITIGATION ) DOCKET NO. 45 : :
CA
OPINION AND ORDER | = Cem	SERENE Lo
=EE
BEFORE ALFRED P. MURRAH, CHAIRMAN, AND JOHN MINOR WISDOM, EDWARD EE SE
WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER, JOSEPH S. LORD, III, . oo
AND STANLEY A. WEIGEL*, JUDGES OF THE PANEL
PER CURIAM RE I
This is the second time this matter has been before the REE Lo
Panel for possible transfer for coordinated or consolidated oo Co
pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §1407. The first time EE
there were only three relevant actions pending in two different oo SE
districts and all parties opposed transfer under §1407. BAc- : Co Ee
cordingly an order was entered on June 8, 1970 declining to Co
transfer any of these actions,	but the order was without prej-
udice to the right of any party to move for transfer at a : oo
later time. Since that time six new actions have been filed B co
and there are now a total of nine related actions pending in Co
four different districts. On October 6, 1970 defendants oo
Emhart Corporation, Sargent and Company,	and ILCO Corporation .
moved for transfer of all related actions to the District of oo
* Judge Stanley A. Weigel was unable to attend the hearing ’ : So
in this matter but with the consent of all parties participated
in this decision.

Case MDL No. 45 Document2 Filed 04/30/15 Page	4 of 9
: 2
] Connecticut for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.
Since all parties now agree that transfer under §1407 is
necessary there is no need for an extended discussion of the
pending cases other than to point out that they involve both
common questions of fact and, to some extent, overlapping or
conflicting class action claims.2/ All parties agree, and we
so find, that there are common questions of fact among these
related civil actions and that the convenience of parties and
their witnesses and the just and efficient conduct of this
entire litigation would be served by a transfer to a single .
district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
The dispute between the parties, as is so often the case
¢® in multidistrict litigation, is not whether the actions should
be transferred but rather to which district they should
be transferred. However the parties take a rather parochial
view of the "convenience factor." The defendants favor the
1/ On December 4, 1970, the fourth defendant, Eaton, Yale
and Towne, Inc., joined in this motion.
2/ The background for these private antitrust actions was
provided by four government civil actions filed in the District
of Connecticut, one against each defendant and each charging
separate vertical conspiracy between the defendant and its
~ distributors. No horizontal conspiracy among the four
manufacturers was asserted in any of the governments suits.
Three of these actions were terminated by entry of a consent
decree before any significant discovery had taken place. The
fourth action, against Eaton, Yale and Towne Inc., is still
pending in the District of Connecticut. The nine private
antitrust actions contain somewhat broader allegations of a
horizontal conspiracy among the four defendants as well as
] a conspiracy between each defendant and its distributors.

Case MDL No. 45 Document2 Filed 04/30/15 Page	5 of 9
‘ ‘ -
3
] District of Connecticut, the New York plaintiffs3/ favor the
Southern District of New York, the Philadelphia plaintiffs?’
favor the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,	and the Chicago
plaintiffs3/ originally favored the Northern District of
Illinois. The exceptions are the Florida plaintiffsb/ who
support consolidation and favor transfer to the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.
We think the District of Connecticut stands out as the
most appropriate transferee forum. At the time the motion
was filed there were no private civil actions pending in
Connecticut,	?/ put since that time all three of the actions .
originally commenced in the Northern District of Illinois have
been transferred to the District of Connecticut for all purposes
eo pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1404 (a). Where transfer under §1407 is
preceded by transfer of some cases under 1404(a), the district
selected by the transferor judge or judges and the reasons given
3/ The City of New York, the New York City Housing Authority,
The Board of Higher Education of the City of New York, the Board
of Education of the City of New York and the State of New York.
4/ The City of Philadelphia and the Amherst Leasing Corp.
5/ The State of Connecticut, the State of Indiana and the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
6/ The State of Florida and the Bermar Construction Corp.,
the Hospital Development and the Miami International Merchandise
Mart, Inc.
7/ Of course the presence of a related action in the trans-
feree district is not a statutory prerequisite to transfer
[ under Section 1407.

Case MDL No. 45 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 6 of 9
oa
o 4therefor are entitled to great weight in selecting the most
appropriate district for transfer of the remaining actions
under §1407. Cf. In re Frost Patent Litigation, 316 F. Supp.
977 (JPML 1970); Hanover, New Hampshire Air Disaster Litigation,
314 F. Supp. 62 (JPML 1970); Dayton, Ohio Air Disaster Litigation,
310 F. Supp. 798 (JPML 1970); In re Westec Corp., 307 F. Supp.
559 (JPML 1969); In re Koratron Patent and Antitrust Litigation,
302 F. Supp. 239 (JPML 1969); Hendersonville Air Disaster
Litigation, 297 F. Supp. 1039 (JPML 1969); Ardmore, Oklahoma
Air Disaster Litigation, 295 F. Supp. 45 (JPML 1968). '
A second reason for selecting the District of Connecticut
is the fact that all four defendant corporations are located
¢ either in Connecticut or in an adjoining state, and most of the
witnesses and relevant documents are located in or near
Hartford, Connecticut. In addition the fact that the four
government actions were commenced in the District of Connecticut
is a factor which favors the transfer of these private actions
to that district, although this factor is less significant
because little discovery has occurred in connection with the
government's suits. Cf. In re Motor Vehicle Air Pollution
Litigation, 311 F. Supp. 1349 (JPML 1970).
While it is unquestionably true that other districts
would be more convenient for individual plaintiffs,we "must
weigh the interests of all of the plaintiffs and all of the
® defendants and must consider multiple litigation as a whole

Case MDL No. 45 Document2 Filed 04/30/15 Page	7 of 9
5
0 in light of the purpose of the law." In re Childrens Books
Litigation, 297 F. Supp. 385 (JPML 1968). With this in mind
we are certain that the convenience of parties and their
witnesses and the just and efficient conduct of this entire
litigation would be served by transfer of this litigation to
the District of Connecticut.
The parties favoring transfer to the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania fear that transfer to another district will
substantially impede the progress of this litigation. They
point out that a comprehensive discovery schedule has been
established in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and that )
two national class actions have been approved. We commend
9 the early establishment both of class actions and discoveryschedules and we would be loath to take any action which
would delay the processing of complex and multidistrict
litigation but we see no reason why the transfer of these
cases to the District of Connecticut should result in any
delay in the proceedings. As to the existing discovery
schedule, the parties will, of course, be expected to comply
with all orders entered prior to transfer and requests for
delays or extensions should not be granted as a matter of
course. Counsel for some plaintiffs anticipate that immediately
upon transfer counsel for defendants will move to stay all
discovery until after the initial pretrial conference is
held by the transferee court. We think the better course
0

Case MDL No. 45 Document2 Filed 04/30/15 Page	8 of 9
6
® would be to follow the discovery schedule established in the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania until modified by the
transferee judge after the initial pretrial conference.
Indeed the Manual for Complex and Multidistrict Litigation
provides:
Except in rare cases for good cause appearing,
there should, however, be no stay of discovery
which is not accompanied by positive plan for the
expeditious accomplishment of discovery or
disposition of the litigation without discovery.
Part I, §l.1
Similarly, with regard to the national class actions established
by Judge wood , 8/ the transferee court can review and if necessary
modify the orders at any time. Rule 23 F.R.C.P.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that all actions listed on Schedule
9 A pending in other districts are hereby transferred to the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §1407. With the consent of said court ,%/ all
actions listed on Schedule A as well as all related actions
hereinafter filed in or transferred to the District of
Connecticut are hereby assigned to the Honorable M. Joseph
Blumenfeld for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
8/ City of Philadelphia v. Emhart Corporation, 50 F.R.D. 232,
(E.D. Pa. 1970)
9/ The written consent of the Chief Judge of the District of
Connecticut to the assignment of the cases to Judge M, Joseph
Ps Blumenfeld has been duly filed with the Clerk of the Panel.

Case MDL No. 45 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 9 of 9
SCHEDULE A DOCKET NO. 45 -
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT |
State of Connecticut v. Eaton Yale & Towne, Civil Action
Inc., et al. No. 14147 (*)
State of Indiana v. Eaton Yale & Towne, Civil Action
Inc., et al. No. 14148 (*)
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, etc. v. Civil Action
Eaton Yale & Towne, Inc., et al. No. 14191 (**)
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
State of Florida v. Emhart Corp., et al. Civil Action
No. 70-1411~Civ.
Bermar Construction Corp., et al. wv. Civil Action
Emhart Corp., et al. No. 70-1410-Civ.
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
City of Philadelphia v. Emhart Corp., et al. Civil Action
No. 70-352
Amherst Leasing Corp. v. Emhart Corp., et al. Civil Action
No. 70-494
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
The City of New York, et al. v. Emhart Corp., Civil Action
et al. No. 70-2417
State of New York v. Emhart Corp., et al. Civil Action
No. 70-4164
(*) Transferred from N.D. Illinois - 11/10/70
(**) Transferred from N.D. Illinois - 12/8/70