IN RE: Trade Secrets in Manufacturing High Molecular Weight Polyethylene

Case MDL No. 92 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1 of 4
: . ’ pp HII	Bs
vo HULL
® BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ERR REER- ON ht § DY nT
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION HAR	20 1m
PATI hy,
A
IN RE TRADE SECRETS IN MANUFACTURING ) CT
HIGH MOLECULAR WEIGHT POLYETHYLENE ) DOCKET NO. 92
OPINION AND ORDER
BEFORE AEERED P. MURRAH, CHAIRMAN, AND JOHN MINOR WISDOM,
EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON*, WILLIAM H. BECKER,
JOSEPH S. LORD, III, AND STANLEY A. WEIGEL, JUDGES OF THE
PANEL
PER CURIAM
Plaintiffs in this litigation, Impact Plastics and its
subsidiary, Future Plastics, are manufacturers of high mole-
cular weight plastics. They brought four actions in three
® - different districts against former employees alleging use of
: and conspiracy to use trade secrets in competition with the
plaintiffs. Plaintiffs moved the Panel for transfer under
Section 1407 and all defendants opposed the motion.l/ We find
* Although Judge Robson was not present at the hearing, he
has, with the consent of all parties, participated in this
decision.
1l/ Plaintiffs' motion originally réguested transfer of four
actions for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Since the date of filing, however, one of the actions brought
in the District of South Carolina has been tried and is pre-
sently awaiting decision. And since the hearing, the action
pending in the Western District of North Carolina has been
dismissed.

Case MDL No. 92 Document2 Filed 04/30/15 Page	2 of 4
a | -2-
¢ .
that none of the criteria favoring transfer exist in this
® litigation and accordingly deny the motion with prejudice.’
Each action in this litigation involves the existence
of plaintiffs’ trade secrets and the allegations of conspiracy
to use the trade secrets. There is, however, a lack of com-
monality surrounding these few factual issues that we find
cuts against transfer of the actions for coordinated or consoli-
dated pretrial proceedings. The defendants were employed by
the plaintiffs at different times in different capacities and
were exposed to different portions of plaintiffs' alleged
"trade secrets," which will focus discovery on an individualized
basis. Furthermore, respondents assert that the contracts not
to compete or disclose confidential information that defendants
had with plaintiffs vary markedly from individual to indivi-
® dual. We hold that these limited common questions of fact are
so predominant in these actions that transfer for coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings would not serve the con-
venience of parties and witnesses nor promote the just and
efficient conduct of the actions.
Another factor militates against transfer of these
actions. Plaintiffs' action in South Carolina alleging
2/ Plaintiffs' counsel has represented to the Panel that he
intends to file venue motions under Section 1404 (a) to have
the cases transferred to a particular district for all purposes.
It is true that we have sometimes deferred decision until the
determination of a filed venue motion because it is more
desirable to have a case transferred for all purposes than for
the limited pretrial purposes associated with a Section 1407
transfer. See, e.g., In re Deering Milliken Patent Litigation,
328 F. Supp. 504 (J.P.M.L. 1970). We refuse to defer in this
® instance, however, because it would not affect our ultimate.	decision.

Case MDL No. 92 Document2 Filed 04/30/15 Page	3 of 4
co LT - 3 - |
® misappropriation	of trade secrets by a former employee has
- | been tried and is presently awaiting decision by the district
court. A decision regarding the trade secrets issue adverse
to plaintiffs' interest may well have a res judicata effect
in these later filed actions. And there is the distinct
possibility that the discovery undertaken in that case will
be available to these defendants.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for transfer of
the actions listed on the attached Schedule A be, and hereby
is, DENIED WITH PREJUDICE.
®
® N

Case MDL No. 92 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 4 of 4
° DOCKET NO. 92 SCHEDULE A
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA .
Future Plastics, Inc. v. Ware Shoals Civil Action
Plastics, Inc., et al. No. 67-35
Impact Plastics, Inc., et al. v. Ware Civil Action
Shoals Plastics, Inc., et al. No. 71-1178
] WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
Impact Plastics, Inc., et al. v. Ware Civil Action
Shoals Plastics, Inc., et al. (*) No. 3007
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
Impact Plastics, Inc., et al. v. Poly-Hi Civil Action
Inc., et al. No. 71 F 132
(*) Action dismissed February 11, 1972.