IN RE: Government Auto Fleet Sales Antitrust Litigation

Case MDL No. 65 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1 of 11
. HUDICRAL PI EERE ERT As
. MULTI (i Lo Co
: SOLED TT EE
THE JUDICIAL PANEL NR 1 CRI
ON JUK21 117) we
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION PATEIC2 [1 poe EE	: ATRIAL HEY AED Po or
CLERK GF ThE PANEL
IN RE GOVERNMENT AUTO FLEET ) :
SALES ANTITRUST LITIGATION ) DOCKET NO. 65
OPINION AND ORDER ; \ |
BEFORE ALFRED P. MURRAH, CHAIRMAN, AND JOHN MINOR WISDOM, EDWARD SEE
WEINFELD*, EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER, JOSEPH S. LORD, I so Lo N
III, AND STANLEY A, WEIGEL*, JUDGES OF THE PANEL
PER CURIAM |
This matter is before the Panel pursuant to its order EEN RI
directing the parties to the actions listed on Schedule A to 3 co
show cause why those actions should not be transferred to a
single district for ccordinated or consolidated pretrial pro- : :
ceedings under 28 U.S.C. §1407. Responses were received from He
all interested parties and a hearing was held in Washington, D.C. oF : -
to hear argument on the proposed transfer. The parties seem
1/ :
to agree that, with one exception, these cases share common Co
* Judges Edward Weinfeld and Stanley A. Weigel were unable : Co
to attend the hearing in this matter but, with the consent of
all parties, have participated in this decision.
1/ All parties agree that the Merit Motors Case (a case
brought by an automobile dealer apposed to discounts to commer-
cial fleet purchasers) should not be included with the actions _ Te
brought by states and other government entities urging that a ~
governmental fleet discounts should be reinstated. Although oo
there may be some overlapping discovery, we do not believe that
the inclusion of this case would promote the just and efficient Cl Co
conduct of this litigation and it will not be included in this :
transfer order, If a substantial number of cases of this type
are filed they may be appropriate for treatment under §1407.

Case MDL No. 65 Document2 Filed 04/30/15 Page	2 of 11
. A
® , -2 =
- questions of fact and that the convenience of the parties and
their witnesses would be served by transferring them to a single
district. The disagreement among the parties relates to the
method of transfer and to the selection of the transferee
district.
All plaintiffs strongly urge the immediate transfer of
all pending cases to the Southern District of New York for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the cases
originally filed in that district. The defendants do not oppose
transfer under section 1407 but would prefer to have all related
cases transferred to a single district, preferably the Eastern |
District of Michigan, for all purposes under	28 U.S.C. §1404 (a).
® They have therefore filed section 1404(a) motions in each of
the districts in which these actions are now pending and they
urge us to postpone our decision until these motions are
decided. The defendants suggest that a favorable ruling on
the motion filed in the New York cases could lead the way to
the transfer of all cases to one district for all purposes
under section Leoa a). That possibility no longer exists for
the two judges who have ruled on their 1404 (a) motions have
2/ ~~Defendants urge the Panel's decision in the Deering-Milliken
Patent Litigation, __ F. Supp. ___ (JPML 1970) supports their position.
It is true that we declined to order transfer under section 1407 in
~ the Deering-Milliken Cases because there appeared to be a real possi-
bility that the multidistrict aspect of that litigation would be
eliminated by transfers under section 1404(a) and in fact it was.
However the circumstances there were wholly unlike those present
@ in the cases now before us.	.

Case MDL No. 65 Document2 Filed 04/30/15 Page	3 of 11
-3 = Le i Wl]® Ef y	denied them.
Since all parties agree that there are many substantial
and complex questions of fact common to all of these cases, a
| detailed analysis of them will not be necessary. Prior to 1970,
the three major domestic automobile manufacturers, Ford, Chrysler
and General Motors, offered discounts to volume purchasers of
motor vehicles. The automobile dealers generally opposed fleet
discounts contending that they, not the fleet purchasers, should
| be receiving the manufacturers lowest price. The plaintiffs assert
that in the spring of 1970, each of the three major automobile
manufacturers, allegedly in response to pressures brought by the
_ Nation Automobile Dealers Association, ended their discounts to
government fleet buyers .
o Each of the plaintiffs allege, in substantially similar
language, that the defendants have engaged in a combination and
conspiracy to reduce competition in governmental fleet sales. =
Injunctive relief and treble damages are sought. As in most
| multidistrict private treble damage antitrust litigation, the
existence, scope and effect of the conspiracy involve factual
matters common to all cases. In re Concrete Pipe Cases, 302
F. Supp. 244 (JPML 1969).
3/ Judge John Morgan Davis denied the motion to transfer the
City of Philadelphia Case on March 18, 1971 and Chief Judge George
H. Boldt denied the motion to transfer the State of Washington
Case on May 13, 1971.
4

Case MDL No. 65 Document2 Filed 04/30/15 Page	4 of 11
® . - 4 -
The plaintiffs make a strong argument for transfer to
the Southern District of New York while the defendants, relying on
their 1404(a) pleadings, make a strong argument for transfer to
the Eastern District of Michigan. The defendants contend that
any conspiracy involving the domestic automobile manufacturers
would be centered in Detroit and that the relevant documents and
witnesses would be located there. More significantly they
point out that a federal grand jury investigation was commenced
there on the subject of fleet pricing policies and that the
New York plaintiffs have sought many of the same documents
which will have to be produced for the grand jury.
The plaintiffs favor the Southern District of New York
[ primarily because many of the actions were filed there and
because some discovery has already taken place in those actions.
They also point out that the defendants have offices in New
York and that certain of the witnesses whose depositions will
undoubtedly be taken have their offices in the defendants’
New York headquarters.
Both arguments have some merit but neither is compelling.
While it is true that certain relevant documents have been pro-
duced in Detroit pursuant to a grand jury subpoena, and may have
to remain there, there is nc reason why the documents cannot be
inspected there and, if authorized, copies made for use by the
parties. The fact that none of these actions (or any tag-along
cases that we are aware of) were filed in the Eastern District of
@ Michigan and that none of plaintiffs' counsel have offices in

Case MDL No. 65 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 5 of 11
C ] , - 5 =
Detroit would cause the plaintiffs substantial inconvenience if
pretrial proceedings were held in that pistrict. Defendants’
attempt to support their choice of transferee court by pointing
out that many of their employers will undoubtedly have to be
deposed and that such deposition should take place in the Detroit
area. We certainly agree that depositions should generally be
taken where the witness resides but this can be done regardless
of which District is selected as the transferee court. In short,
the fact that certain documents and witnesses are located in the
Detroit area does not compel the transfer of these cases to
the Eastern District of Michigan. |
The situation is similar with regard to the documents
® and witnesses located in New York City. The documents can be
inspected in New York, or copies can be made and sent to a more
convenient location, and the local witnesses can be deposed
there regardless of the district to which these cases are trans-
terred.” Although some discovery has taken place in New York,
it is not of such a magnitude as to justify the transfer of these
cases to the Southern District of New York.
4/ The court might also experience some difficulty if there
were no "local counsel" for plaintiffs who could serve as liaison
counsel and distribute orders and notices for the court. See
Manual for Complex and Multidistrict Litigation, §1.9.
5/ Upon request of the transferee judge, the Panel will assign
"a judge or judges to supervise deposition in Detroit, New York and
wherever they are needed. See Manual for Comples and Multidistrict
@ Litigation ,§2.32.

Case MDL No. 65 Document2 Filed 04/30/15 Page	6 of 11
. Ce
® ’ It seems apparent that this litigation is in its early
stages. Actions have been commenced by at least twelve states
and two cities.” They were filed in four different districts
from Washington to New York. It is quite likely that other
similar actions will be filed by other states in other districts
and as this litigation becomes more national in scope the justi-
fication for transferring the cases to the Scuthern District of
New York or any other East Coast location will diminish. With
national litigation of this type it is sometimes necessary to
transfer the cases to a more central location. In re Butter-
field Patent Litigation, __ F. Supp. __ (JPML 1970). The
Northern District of Illinois has many advantages over the
districts proffered by the parties. It is centrally located
o and is easily accessible from all parts of the country. The
action filed there has been assigned to one judge for all pur-
poses and under that court's practice all related actions filed
in or transferred to that District will be assigned to him.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on the
attached Schedule & (with the exception of the Merit Motors Co.
Case) are hereby transferred to the Northern District of Illinois
and with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable
Frank J. McGarr for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proce-
edings under 28 U.S.C. §1407.
6/ Two of these cases: State of Connecticut, ete. v. General
Motors Corp., et al., N.D. Ill. No. 71 C 830 and State of Colorado
v. General Motors Corp., et al., S.D.N.Y. No. 71 Civ. 1216 were
@ filed too late to be included in the show cause and hearing ordersand are not covered by this order

Case MDL No. 65 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 7 of 11
[ DOCKET NQ. 65 SCHEDULE A
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
1. Merit Motors, Inc., et al. v. Chrysler Corporation, Civil Action
et al. No. 2000-70
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
2. City Of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania v. General Civil Action
Motors Corporation, et al. 70-2753
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
3. The State of Oklahoma v. General Motors Corporation, Civil Action
et al. 70 Civ 4246
4. The State of Texas v. General Motors Corporation, Civil Action
et al. 70 Civ 4247
5. The State of Arizona v. General Motors Corporation, Civil Action
et al. 70 Civ 4248
6. The State of Florida v. General Motors Corporation, Civil Action
@ et al. 70 Civ 4249
7. The State of Iowa Vv. General Motors Corporation, Civil Action
et al. 70 Civ 4250
8. The State of Vermont v. General Motors Corporation, Civil Action
et al. 70 Civ 4251
9. The City of New York, et al. v. General Motors, Civil Action
et al. 70 Civ 4245
1G. The State of Louisiana v. General Mortors Corpora- Civil Action
tion, et al. 70 Civ 5385
11. The State of Alabama v. General Motors Corporation, Civil Action
et al. 70 Civ 5697
12. The State of Missouri v. General Motors Corporation, Civil Action
et al. 70 Civ 5756
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
13. State of Washington v. General Motors Corporation, Civil Action
et al. 4233

Case MDL No. 65 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 8 of 11
— C. ging SP TTT TTT rITNTILLLIIL Te — :
} JUSS ay. x= : :MULTE ri ETAL
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL rR pe ERETELE ION EE oo cL oo -
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION DEC-5 137; wT
CATR J tree, 3 ’ Co
IN RE GOVERNMENT AUTO FLEET ) socken LA or Li in Lo EE
SALES ANTITRUST LITIGATION ) ‘ a
OPINION AND ORDER
BEFORE ALFRED P.MURRAH *, CHAIRMAN, AND JOHN MINOR WISDOM, cS SE .
EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER, } -
JOSEPH S. LORD, III, AND STANLEY A. WEIGEL, JUDGES OF : ETE RETE
THE PANEL TEE
PER CURIAM isaay ll R B JAN
In our initial opinion and order in this litigation Co
we concluded that twelve treble damage antitrust actions, oo
each asserting a conspiracy among the defendant automobile : }
manufacturers to eliminate discounts previously offered to
state and local governments as volume purchasers of motor oo
vehicles, should be transferred to a single district for
pretrial proceedings. We selected the Northern District of
Illinois as the transferee district because of its central
location and easy accessibility. In re Government Auto Fleet iE
Sales Antitrust Litigation,	328 F. Supp. 218 (J.P.M.L. 1971).
The three actions listed on Schedule A contain
similar allegations of a conspiracy to eliminate discounts
to volume purchasers of automobiles. The plaintiffs in a
these actions, however,are not state and local governments . Sn
* Judge Alfred P. Murrah took no part in the consideration	or decision of this matter.

Case MDL No. 65 Document2 Filed 04/30/15 Page	9 of 11
° 2 -
but taxicab companies and automobile rental and leasing
companies who seek to recover for all other commercial fleet
operators pursuant to Rule 23, Fed. R. Civ. P. Defendants
General Motors and Ford have moved for the transfer of
these actions to the Northern District of Illinois for coor-
dinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the previously
transferred cases. Defendant Chrysler and the plaintiffs agree
that the three actions should be transferred to a single dis-
trict for pretrial proceedings, but urge that they be kept
separate from the government fleet cases by transfer to a
district other than the Northern District of Illinois.
After reviewing the briefs and hearing argument on the matter,
C we order the actions transferred to the Northern District of
Illinois.
Each of the defendant automobile manufacturers
apparently operated two separate discount programs, one for
government purchasers and one for commercial fleet operators.
And each manufacturer apparently terminated or altered the
government fleet program by announcements in late April and
early May 1970 and the commercial fleet program by announce-
ments in late May 1970. Chrysler and the plaintiffs emphasize
the differences in the terms of the programs and in their
termination dates as support for their contention that
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings separate
®

Case MDL No. 65 Document2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 10 of 11
® orfrom those in the government cases are necessary. These dif-
ferences in the cases are outweighed, however, by their common
features. }
Although the method of allowing discounts varied,
it appears that the operation of the two programs was inter-
related and Ford and General Motors assert that many of
the same executives were involved in both operations. And
the plaintiffs themselves rely on this commonality by alleging
that the announcement of the discontinuance of government
fleet discounts was made to verify each manufacturer's desire
to agree to the joint elimination or reduction of commercial
fleet discounts. For this reason the parties to each case
C will be interested in inspecting many of the same documents
and interviewing many of the same witnesses as the parties
to the government fleet cases.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed
on the attached Schedule A be, and the same hereby are,
transferred to the Northern District of Illinois for pretrial
proceedings before Judge Frank J. McGarr with the other actions
in this litigation previously transferred by the Panel.
9

Case MDL No. 65 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 11 of 11
| Schedule A Docket No. 65
Southern District of New York
Major Service Co., Inc., et al. Civil Action
v. Ford Motor Co., et al. No. 72 Civ. 2340
Southern District of Florida
Zilber Taxi Service, Inc.
v. General Motors Corporation, Civil Action
et al. No. 72-914
District of Columbia
Auto Discount Rent-N-Drive :
Systems, Inc., Vv. General Motors Civil Action
Corporation, et al. No. 1380-72