IN RE: IBM Peripheral EDP Devices Antitrust Litigation

Case MDL No. 163 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1 of 5
eT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL AUDA Panes
on HULTIBISTRIE bogMULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION LED TTT
IN RE IBM PERIPHERAL EDP DEVICES ) ARY 13 9gANTITRUST LITIGATION ) DOCKET NO."163
FATRICI 0. HOWARDCLERK CF THE PANEL
OPINION AND ORDER
BEFORE ALFRED 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
This litigation was spawned as a result of the recent
decision in Telex Corporation v. International Business Machines
Corporation, 367 F. Supp. 258 (N.D. Okla. 1973), and involves
IBM's alleged illegal monopolization of the market for electronic
data processing (EDP) devices designed for attachment to IBM's
central processing units. Plaintiffs include manufacturers of
EDP devices and computer leasing companies. IBM, the sole defend-
ant, moves the Panel for transfer of the three actions pending in
the Central District of California to the Northern District of
California for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
with the four actions already pending in that district. The
Los Angeles plaintiffs oppose transfer. We find that these actions
raise common questions of fact and that transfer of the actions
pending in the Central District of California to the Northern
District of California will be for the convenience of the parties
and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of
© * Judge Murrah was unable to attend the hearing and, therefore,
took no part in the consideration or decision of this matter,

Case MDL No. 163 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 2 of 5
- ,
the litigation.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §292(b), the Chief Judge of the
Ninth Circuit has designated Judge Ray McNichols of the District
of Idaho to sit in the Central and Northern Districts of Califor-
nia and has assigned all of these actions to him for purposes of
conducting both the pretrial proceedings and trial. In light of
this intra-circuit assignment, Los Angeles plaintiffs contend
that the question of transfer under Section 1407 is moot because
all pretrial proceedings are being supervised by a single judge
and there is no risk of inconsistent decisions.
They also argue that there is no need to designate
a transferee district since pretrial proceedings will likely be
held in both Los Angeles and San Francisco. Furthermore, they
point out that all California plaintiffs have joined in a motion
for partial summary judgment based on the theory that IBM should
be collaterally estopped from denying or relitigating monopoly
issues which were decided against it in the Telex case, supra.
If- the motion for partial summary judgment is granted, Los Angeles
plaintiffsimaintain that discovery on the remaining issues
will be so specialized that any attempts to coordinate that
discovery would be fruitless.
These actions all share common questions of fact con-
cerning the alleged monopolization by IBM. Clearly, the criteria
for transfer of these actions to a single district for coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings as set forth in Section 1407
are satisfied. Although it may be said that, in light of Judge

Case MDL No. 163 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 3 of 5
- 3 -
McNichols' assignment, the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and the just and efficient conduct of these seven actions will not
be particularly enhanced by a Section 1407 transfer order, we do
not perceive any harm that could result from such an order.
Indeed, we think there is an overriding consideration which neces-
sitates that a Section 1407 transfer order be entered at this time.
It is possible, if not likely, that in the wake of the Telex
decision additional actions with similar allegations will be filed.
There is no reason to believe that all such additional actions
will be brought in a jurisdiction encompassed within the Ninth
Circuit. The established procedures of the Panel in connection
with its responsibilities under Section 1407 is a sure means of
assuring that subsequent tag-along actions will also be assigned
to Judge McNichols.
The fact that in addition to common discovery there
may be some specialized discovery necessary for each action is
nothing unique to complex multidistrict litigation. If separate
treatment of certain issues appears warranted, plaintiffs may
address their arguments to the transferee judge who has the
responsibility to determine whether and to what extent the pretrial
proceedings should be coordinated or consolidated. See In re Equity
Funding Corporation of America Securities Litigation, __ F. Supp.
__, ___ (J.P.M.L., filed February 1, 1974).

Case MDL No. 163 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 4 of 5
a. Ca
Either the Northern or Central District of California
could be described as an appropriate transferee forum for this
litigation. We find the Northern District of California is
the most suitable transferee district. One of the factors
influencing our decision to transfer this litigation to the
Northern District of California is the location of IBM's develop-
ment laboratory and EDP computer plant within that district.
That plantj we are informed, is the source of many important
documents and witnesses relevant to plaintiffs allegations.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on
the attached Schedule A pending in the Central District of Cali-
fornia be, and the same hereby are, transferred to the Northern
District of California and, with the consent of that court,
assigned to the Honorable Ray McNichols for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407
with the actions already pending in that district and listed on
Schedule A.

Case MDL No. 163 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 5 of 5
SCHEDULE A DOCKET NO. 163
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Marshall Industries, a Corp. v. IBM Corp. Civil Action
No. 73-3043-WJF
California Computer Products, Inc., et al. v. Civil Action
IBM Corp. No. 73-2331-F
Hudson General Corp. v. IBM Corp. Civil Action
No. 73-2796-F
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Transamerica Computer Co., a Corp. V. Civil Action
IBM Corp. No. C-73-1832-WTS
ILC Peripherals Leasing Corp. V. Civil Action
IBM Corp. No. C-73-2238-RHS
Memorex Corp., et al. v. IBM Corp. Civil Action
No. C-73-2239-SC
Memorex A.B. (Sweden), et al. v. Civil Action
IBM Corp. No. C-73-2240-ACW