IN RE: USS Trenton Disaster Litigation

Case MDL No. 164 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1 of 2	: fei ES [38 £4
C 1496 283 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT	- was performed on the bulk materials the part of those who were parties to E
Co only for the purpose of separating the both actions, and where certain parties
- completed assembly from the supply were secking stipulation that all discov-
) source. However, in the instant case as ery conld be nsed in all actions, motion
well as in the Dillingham. case the bulk would be denied. BE .
materials never entered into the assem- Motion to transfer denied. :
bly process in the form in which they . .
: were exported from the United States.
Ou the basis of the evidence of record Conrfs &3277.2
‘the court concludes that the district Where eight actions arising out of ’
director committed no error in disallow. Same disaster on hoard ship had been
ing item 807.00 treatment for the nylon cousolidated in New York, so that there
Co filaments at bar in view of the non-com- Were only two cases focusing on the
pliance with item 807.00 clause (a). C¢omMmon issue of liability, one in New :
: The conrt does not consider that clauses York and onc in South Carolina, where
© (b) and (c) of item 807.00 pose issues OMY parties who favored transfer of
] for decision. These actions must be dig- New York actions to South Carolina
: . . - missed. : were those who were parties to both ac-
Judgment will be entered accordingly. tions, so that possibility of duplicative- i ) discovery could be avoided through coop-
erative efforts, where certain parties -
. : ; : were seeking stipulation that all discov-
’ - : ery could he used in all actions, aud
oo where seven of the Mew York plaintiffs
i FN . : opposed Lransfer, motion of one defend- ’
WE j ant, to transfer New York actions tood . District of South Carolina for ccordinat- .
® In re USS TRENTON DISASTER ed or consolidated pretrial proceedings. LITIGATION. would be denied. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1407. :
Eo - © No. 164. CL
oy Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Refore ALFRED P. MURRAN. Chai :
| Nov. 6, 1974. om a NOTIN, MINOT WISHOM	i an, and JOHN MINOR WISDOM, ED-
! : WARD WEINVFELD, EDWIN A. ROB-
: Manufacturer of valve against SON, WILLIAM it. BECKER, TOSTPIT A
whom several New York actions had S. LORD, JH, and STANLEY A. WEIL oo
been brought for death and injury suf- GET. Judges of the Panel. .
. fered by crew members when steam es- .
: caped from ruptured valve on ship OPINTON AND ORDER
7 sought to have those actions transferred . :
, to the District of South Carolina for co- PER CURIAM.
Cl ovdinated or conselidated pretrial pro- On June 29, 1971, the vessel ISS
’ ceedings, The Judicial Panel on Multi- Tronton was at sea in the vicinity of
dislriet Litigation held that where the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, when steam es.
only parties favoring the transfer were caped from a ruptuved valve aboard the
: thoae who were parties to both the New ship causing the death or injury of neve
York and the Sonth Cavolina actions, eral erew members. One action arising
where the New York actions had been [rom the mishap hag been filed in the
consolidated so that there were, in of- District of South Cavolina and eight .
feel, only two actions foeusing on the have been filed in the Bastern District
comman issue of lability, where possi- of New York,
aN hitity of duplicative discovery could be Defendant Walworth Company, the
ha avoided through conperative efforts on valve manufacturer, moves the Panel for -
® |

: Case MDL No. 164 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 2 of 2 :
5 IN RE USS TRENTON DISASTER LITIGATION 1407	DEER Cite sg 3R3 F.Supp. LH40 (1974) .
: an order transferring the New York ac- ly be avoided through cooperative ef-
tions to the District of South Carolina forts among these parties or by their re- }
EE I for coordinated or consolidated pretrial questing a stay of the South Carolina =~ - ]
: proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § action and proceeding with the consoli- .
Lo 1407. All New York plaintiffs except dated New York action. :
oo . one oppose transfer. We find insuffi- Furthermore, we are advised that cer-
EE : cient basis for transfer under Section t4in parties are seeking a stipulation :
. 1407 and, accordingly, deny the motion! that all discovery may be used in all ac-
._ Movant contends that all actions in tions. Thus, we believe there are suit- .
} this litigation involve the same accident able alternatives to a Section 1407 trans-
oo and that transfer is necessary in ovder fer that ave available to the parties in - -
: : to avoid duplication of discovery. Iu- this litigation. . : .
Co deed, we recognize that the existence of It is therefore ordered that the motion
: common questions of fact concerning the tg transfer the actions listed on Sched- -
N issue of liability raises the possibility of yle ‘A be, and the same hereby is, denied.duplicative discovery among these ac- - :
LO tions. But we find that with respect to ~ SCHEDULE A i oo
a this particular litigation the overall con- District of South Carolina ' :
: i oo venience of the parties and witnesses Janie R. Lee, Executrii, etc. v. Civil Action }
: . and the just and efficient conduct of the south carolina Lockheed Ship- No. 72-517 )
: : : litigation will not necessarily be en- building & Construction Co., et al. a
: : © hanced by a Section 1407 transfer. Eastern District of New York a
: First, the eight New York actions Joseph A. Cretella, Adm, etc. v. © Chil Action ol
; : have been consolidated pursuant to local pockneed Shipbuilding & Construc- No. 73 C 897
: ; : rules and assigned to a single judge. Doris A. Rosemeck, Adm. etc. v. Civil Action’
Poy : I'hus, for all practical purposes, this liti- © [ockheed Shipbuilding & Construc- No. 73 €C 925
Ra ; gation involves only two actions focusing tion Co, et al . . A
of “on the c¢ is f liability e in Mary Rose, Adm. etc. v. Lockheed Civit Action |
nt 1¢ common 193ue o . b ty, on . Shipbuilding & Construction "Co., Mo. 73 C 926
New York and another in South Caroli-
“ na. Julius T. Kormos, Adm, etc. wv. Civil Action
=e Secondly, the only parties that favor pockhend Shiphutding E Constryc- No. 73 € 927
’ ~ Section 1497 treatment ave parties to Gerald "A. Black v. Lockheed Ship- Civil Action .
| both the New York and South Carolina building & Construction Co., ct al. Mo. 73 C 928 '
{ sctions: the plaintiff in the South Cavo- Charles Fo Krause v. Lockheed Civil Action
i lina action is also a plaintiff in onc of Shipbuilding & Construction Co, Mo. 73 C 929
: . PE et al. . .
.. the actions cousolidated m New York, Forest L. Edwards v. Lockheed Civil Action : “
i : ~ and all of the defendants in the South Snipbuitding & Construction Co. et No. 73 C 930 ¥
‘ } Carolina action are also party defend- a - :
. LP " WR . Janie R. Lee, Executriv, etc. wv. Civil Action	
antsy WwW . fore, an 08- © ’ :
: ants in New York. Therefore, any pos- © yf0 qh iain a Construc- No. 73 © 944
sibility of duplicative discovery can cusi- ion co, et al.
f. This matter was set to be heard at a regn- matter decided on the briefs or that oral ar-
H tarly gcheduled Panel hearing. Because of gument could he rescheduled, The parties
N i : the sudden illness of one of the attorneys, decided to waive their right to oral argu-
: : however, the suatter was not heard and the ment and, at their request, the question of .
parties were advised that they could submit transfer of these nections under 28 U.S.C. §
} supplementary memoranda and have the 1407 was submitted on the briefs, i
’ * so ’ .
. . . .
[+] Sr HUMBER SYSTEM .
$ SAN