IN RE: Plywood Antitrust Litigation

Case MDL No. 159 Document2 Filed 04/30/15 NY. A
JUDE 20 oy
) WL CTLHUATIO
[ . : CTL TL
oo DOCKET NO. 159 . on05719 1975
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION, ;	aren 0 hah
IN RE PLYWOOD ANTITRUST LITIGATION RERAT
: oo ORDER REASSIGNING LITIGATION
Because of the illness of Judge Fred J. Cassibry, the
transferee judge in this litigation, it is hereby ordered
that this litigation is reassigned to Judge Sam C. Pointer,
Jr. of the Northern District of Alabama sitting by designation
in the Eastern District of Louisiana pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§292 (b) effective September 30, 1976.
FOR THE PANEL: : |
A
TH owe L~ BaRe NE ELSE A VASAT
¢ John Minor WisdomChairman .

} oT Case MDL No. 159 Document2 Filed 04/30/15 Page	2 of 6 TR
® BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ~~ 5
MULTIDISTRIOT LTIcamdiI0 [97
IN RE PLYWOOD ANTITRUST LITIGATION ({iri- /{{/)//DOCKET NO. 159
OPINION	AND ORDER
BEFORE ALFRED P. MURRAH *, CHAIRMAN, AND JOHN MINOR WISDOM,
EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. RECKER,
JOSEPH S. LORD, III, AND STANLEY A. WEIGEL, JUDGES OF THE PANEL
PER CURIAM
This litigation involves an alleged conspiracy within
the plywood industry to fix the price of softwood plywood. Plain-
tiffs in each of the eight actions before the Panel are purchasers
[ of softwood plywood and they charge the defendant plywood producers
3 with violations of federal antitrust laws. All the actions con-tain Rule 23 allegations purporting to represent large classes of
direct and indirect purchasers of softwood plywood. Several de-
fendant producers move the Panel for an order transferring all the
actions to the Eastern District of Louisiana for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407.
The only opposition to the motion comes from plaintiffs in the
actions pending in districts other than the Eastern District of
Louisiana. On the basis of the briefs submitted and the hearing
held, we find that these actions involve common questions of fact
and that transfer of these actions to the Eastern District of
Louisiana will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
_* Although Judge Murrah was not present at the hearing, he has,
® : with the consent of all parties, participated in this decision.

: : Case MDL No. 159 Document2 Filed 04/30/15 Page	3 of 6
and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
The plaintiffs opposing transfer contend that the alle-
gations in the Louisiana actions are much broader than those con-
tained in their actions because only Louisiana plaintiffs allege
violations of the Robinson-Patman Act in addition to violations
of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which permeate all of the actions.
And they argue that in order to demonstrate Robinson-Patman Act
| violations, the Louisiana plaintiffs necessarily named a multitude
of local defendants and, as a result, will be seeking discovery
which is largely irrelevant to the other actions in this litigation.
The opponents to transfer also contend that because of
the Robinson-Patman, claims complicated issues relating to plain-
RR Rule 23 class allegations are involved in the Louisiana
actions but do not exist in any of the other actions. Consequently,
they see no reason for transferring their actions to Louisiana
where they will become embroiled in class action matters in which
they have little or no interest.
These arguments are not sufficient. All the actions
contain allegations of violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act
stemming from alleged "phantom freight" charges for softwood
plywood produced in the South which supposedly raised prices
artificially to the level charged for plywood produced in the
Pacific Northwest. And although plaintiffs' overall legal strata-
gems differ somewhat, they all rest on a common nexus of facts.
_Thus, transfer of the actions to a single district will prevent
é the possibility of duplicative discovery concerning defendants
alleged misconduct. And our decision in no way limits or impedes

) ) Case MDL No. 159 Document2 Filed 04/30/15 Page	4 of 6
— «3 =
® Louisiana plaintiffs' desire to pursue their Robinson-Patman Act
claims or threatens to protract the litigation involving alleged
violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. It, of course, is
the responsibility of the transferee judge to determine whether
and to what extent the pretrial proceedings involving the Robinson-
Patman and Sherman Act claims should be coordinated or consolidated.
See, e.g., In re Equity Funding Corporation of America Securities
Litigation, =F. Supp. ____, _ (J.P.M.L., filed February 1,
1974).
Furthermore, the class allegations in those actions are
clearly overlapping. A Section 1407 transfer of all actions in
this litigation to a single district and assignment of those actions
t to one judge will eliminate any possibility of inconsistent class
determinations by the various district courts involved and assure
the swift resolution of the difficult Rule 23 issues adverted to
by the parties opposing transfer. See Manual for Complex Litiga-
tion, Part I, Section 5.40 (rev. ed. 1973). See also In re Plumbing
Fixtures Cases, 298 F. Supp. 484, 493 (J.P.M.L. 1968).
The Eastern District of Louisiana is the most appropri-
ate transferee district for this litigation. The majority of
the parties favor that district and it appears that many of the
potential witnesses and documents relevant to the issues raised
are located in the South. Moreover, discovery in the Louisiana
actions has already commenced before the Honorable Edward J.
Boyle, Sr. and he is totally familiar with all of the issues
@® involved in this litigation.

i ) Case MDL No. 159 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 5 of 6
= -4-
® IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that all actions listed on
the attached Schedule A pending in districts other than the
Eastern District of Louisiana be, and the same hereby are,
transferred to the Eastern District of Louisiana and, with the
consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Edward J. Boyle,
Sr. for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §1407 with the actions pending in that district and
listed on Schedule A.
®

° - Case MDL No. 159 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 6 of 6
Be EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS |
: he & M Construction Co. v. Boise | Civil Action
.... Capocade, et al. No. 74-C=32
NRE PR .
i EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
"park Lane Associates, et al. Vv. Boise Civil Action
i, Cascade Corp., et al. No. 73 C 17.7 .
0 EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
~ John J. O'Shea, Trustee in Bankruptcy Civil Action
©, of Diamond Lumber Co., Inc., etc. Vi No. 73-2141
wi. Boiee Cascade Corp., et al.
oo R EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
cL Robert Schubel, et al. v. Georgia Civil Action }
.. Pacifig Corp., et al. No. 73-3345
a (section A) N
vo .
Gabriel Building Supply Co., Inc. Civil Action
© V. Agnew Plywood, et al. No. 72-522
West Dear Park Associates, et al. V. -Civil Action
' Georgia Pacific Corp.) et al. No. 73-2671
Altman Bros., Inc. of Massachusetts, Civil Action
' at als Vi Georgia Pacific Corp. No. 73-2860
(Section H)
James I. Barnes Construction CoO., Civil Action
et al. Vv. Geoxgia Pacific No. 73-2861
~Coxpsy et als (section C)
Co TAIT .
SEE CE
IR LE TA
RE Tt EE
! h ' ov ol LO N ) " . !
LL Lo Co oo .