IN RE: Toilet Seat Antitrust Litigation

| | | Case MDL No.184 Document 2 Filed05/01/15 Page 1 of3[ial 1342 387 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT :
| " because the agency has refused to discuss ;
the matter with defengant, let alone con- In re TOILET SEAT ANTITRUST : :
duct even minimally adgquate factfinding : LITIGATION.
to insure procedural fairness. Defendant No. 184. : . :
has demanded a hearin and now correct-
SPUN ly but belatedly maintgins that the agen- “Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. . :
cy lacks the authority 8 conduct hearings Jan. 17, 1975. ok
. without first publishiflg its procedures. : i
If adequate rulemaking and hearing pro- . 5
cedures are eventuallf established, the ~The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
courts may be able to mit their review Litigation transferred four private tre- .
of future agency enfokcement decisions ble damage antitrust actions instituted
: to the traditional determination of the Northern District of Illinois and
whether or not such ¥ction was arbi- two similar actions commenced in the .
trary or capricious. or now, however, Eastern District of PennsyIvania and
the Government mustEbe prepared to the District of the District of Columbia
demonstrate by a prep@nderance of the to the Eastern District of Michigan for
evidence that its prdposed sanctions coordinated and consolidated pretrial
against International 2 Harvester are proceedings with similar action pending
justified factually and legally. in that district where all complaints"It is therefore & tracked allegations in the government's
Ordered that doteddant's motions civil ola crimina] anit petio Dis.	é 1) menced an ndin rn Dis- -
0 “for dismissal, stay, or sufnmary judgment trict of Michigan, § mm the mane
: are denied; and it is fhrther Order accordingly
A . Ordered that plaintiff's motion for |
EA summary judgment is dénied; and it ie .
i further 3 1. Courts ¢=277.2
: Ordered that there shall be a final Four private treble damage anti-
i pretrial conference in ppen court on trust actions commenced in the North-
== September 19, 1974, at§4:00 p.m. by ern District of Illinois and two similar a- which time & actions commenced in the Eastern Dis- §
(1) All discovery shall be completed; trict of Pennsylvania and the District of ,
i (2) Written stipulatioffs, if any, shall the District of Columbia were trans-
‘ De filed; = B ferred, for coordinated and consolidated
(3) The names of all fvitnesses shall pretrial proceedings, to the Eastem Dis- -
"be exchanged; 4 trict of Michigan where a similar suit. .: 8 was pending and all suits were spawned
: oo (4) Any depositions tp be offered at py 3 criminal indictment and a compan-
. trial shall be mdrked by both jon government civil enforcement action
parties, indicating the relevant filed in the Eastern District of Michi- ~
portions; and § gan, and underlying documents were un-
{ (5) Each party shall fle a short pre- der control of that court. 28 U.S.C.A. § »
- trial brief citing§principal con- 1407; Sherman Anti-Trust Act, § 1, 15 }
tested facts and aft horities relied U.S.C.A. § 1; Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule
upon; and it is futher 23, 28 U.S.C.A. =
: Ordered that failure Bh comply with 4 oe e=2172
any of these pretrial req 3 rements may, ) Neither government's civil nor
mn the Court's sole discrdtion, result In oriminal antitrust actions were subject )
dismissal or default; ang it is further , transfer to another district for coor-
Ordered that this cas@ shall be set dinated and consolidated pretrial pro-
down for trial de novo on @ctober 9, 1974, ceedings with other similar private tre-
Si , at 9:30 am. ; ble damage antitrust actions. 28 U.S.C.

| . - Case MDL'No. 184 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 2 of 3
Ro -~ :
“ed IN RE TOILET SEAT ANTITRUST LITIGATION 1343 .. Cite as 387 F.Supp. 1342 (1975) } .
® +A. § 1407; Sherman Anti-Trust Act, § ordinated or consolidated pretrial pro- ). 1,156 US.C.A. §1. ceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407
will be for the convenience of parties
EE and witnesses and promote the just and.
. Before ALFRED P. MURRAH, Chair- efficient conduct of this litigation. -
man, and JOHN MINOR WISDQM, ED- All plaintiffs, purporting te represent
WARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROB- various classes of direct and indirect toi-
’ SON, WILLIAM H. BECKER, JOSEPH let seat purchasers, have tracked the al-
S. LORD, III *, arid STANLEY A. WEI- legations in the Government actions and ,
’ GEL ¥*, Judges of the Panel. h allege that defendants conspired to fix
SE oo the price of their wood-flour toilet seats
Co . OPINION AND ORDER in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
i K Act. As all parties recognize, common
- PER CURIAM. factual questions are predominate in :
: [1,2] This litigation consists of sev- these actions warranting their transfer :
en private. treble damage antitrust ac- for coordinated or consolidated pretrial ,
tions: four instituted in the Northern proceedings pursuant to Section 1407.
B District of Illinois and one each in the Moreover, because of the overlapping
Eastern District of Michigan, the East- and conflicting Rule 23 allegations,
: “ern District of Pennsylvania and the transfer is appropriate to avoid incon-
District of ‘the District of Columbia. sistent class action determinations. See, :
The actions were spawned by a criminal e. 9., In re Equity Funding Corporation
indictment and a companion Government of America Securities Litigation, 375 F.
: civil enforcement action filed in the Supp. 1378, 1385-1386 (Jud.Pan.Muli.
: i. Eastern District of Michigan against Lit.1974).
ey " Olsonite Corporation, Bemis Manufac- Defendant Beatrice and plaintiffs in
d turing Co., Beatrice Foods Co., Standard all four of the actions in the Northern
| .Tank & Seat Co. and three individuals District of Illinois favor transfer to that
for Sherman Act violations resulting gistrict while all other parties, with one
=== from an alleged conspiracy to fix the exception,® favor transfer to the Eastern
; Co price of wood-flour toilet seats. Olson- District of Michigan. The parties fa-
: ite and Bemis move the Panel for an or- voring the Northern District of Illinois - )
+ der transferring all of the private ac- pote that a majority of the actions in
: tions to the Eastern District of Michi- this litigation are pending there; that
gan pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and {iscovery in the Illinois actions has al- 7
- 7 Beatrice moves for transfer of the same ready begun; and that that distriet is
actions to the Northern District of 1lli- the situs of one of the commonly alleged .
nois. All responding parties favor conspiratorial acts. They argue that in
transfer but disagree on the location of the event the Eastern District of Michi-
Co. the appropriate transferee forum. gan is selected as the transferee forum, -
, We find. that the actions listed on the = the litigation will likely be stayed until
! attached Schedule A share common ques- + disposition of the Government criminal .
T tions of fact and that their transfer to action pending there and that transfer to ~ -
the Eastern District of Michigan for co- . that district may result in prejudicial
’ * Although Judges Lord and Weigel were not 2. Plaintiffs in Yorkshire Apartment Compa- -~
present at the hearing, they have, with the uy, et al. v. Beatrice Foods Co., et al, D.D.
. consent of all parties, participated in this C., Civil Action No. 74-1100, suggest the . .
decision. ’ . District of the District of Columbin as the .
Lo. . . transferee forum. Other thnu the fact that
I. United States of America v. Beatrice Foods one gnction has been instituted there, that
Co., et al, E.D.Michignn, Criminal No. 4- district has no connection with this litigation
82165; United States of America v. Beatrice and we reject it ag an appropriate situs for . ’
aN Foods Co., et al, E.D.Michigan, Civil Action these Section 1407 proceedings. ‘
® : No. 4-71022, - :	‘

A - .
| Case MDL No. 184 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 3 of 3 :	i . .	
i i di ) E .
C } 1344 387 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT :ee pretrial publicity unnecessarily affecting ment actions is subject to transfer under
the criminal proceeding. Section 1407, such coordination in this .	oy. 13 1 -
: The arguments advanced by the par- litigation? can best be achieved by
} ‘ tics favoring transfer to the Northern transferring all actions to the Eastern .a : Distriét of Illinois, some of which ave District of Michigan.t
highly speculative, are not persuasive in It is therefore ovdered that all actions ;
’ the circumstances of the instant litiga- on the attached Schedule A pending in :
} tion. Although some discovery has com- districts other than the Bastern District
menced in the actions pending in the of Michigan be, and the same herchy
Northern District of Illinois, it hag been are, transferred fo the Eastern District .
very limited and involves only one of the of Michigan and, with the consent of
. common defendants. No valid reason that court, assigned to the Honorable )
has been given to support the suggestion Damon J. Keith for coordinated or con- :
that transfer to the Eastern District of solidated pretrial proceedings, pursuant
. Michigan will unreasonably hamper	or to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, with the action t
. retard discovery in these actions. pending in that district and listed on
More critically, however, the docu- Schedule A. -
ments upon which the grand jury relied Co	- . : . er ea . SCHEDULE A
in returning its indictment and which oT
underlay the Government's civil action Morthera District	of Liino's :
ave under the control of the court in the Have Lumber Co, et al. v. Civil Action : E
Eastern District of Michigan and have Beatrice Foods Co., et al. Mo. 74 C 2008: } ' Suaste svi of. nigan ¢ Madolna Bros. Co., et al. v. Bea- ~~ Civil Action .	been ordered impounded by that court. trice Foods Co, et al. Ho. 74 C 1591
Poa It is apparent that a great deal of coor- The Robino-ladd Co, et af. v. Civil Action
pw a dination will be necessary between the Beatrice Foods Co, et al. Ho. 74 C 1260 Co1: . LI . ’ S$ & L Engineering Co., et al v. Civit Action TL	scovery- whic ere
. : discovery .v hich all plaintiffs seer he € Beatrice Foods Co., et al fo. 74 C 1917and the proceedings in the United oo
a ~r ' . Eastern District of Michigan - .EES States’ actions. Tremendous SUCCESS ——mmrmme	re Co
Lo has been achieved in other multidistrict *5\7 bern sons, Inc. Git Paty
Po . litigation, such as the Government Auto oo a. Tei R ys . ) y Eastern District of Peansyivania ’ . . .! } Fleet Litigation, through the coopera- a cit A )	! . . . fi eT - wr A. Kober Co, Inc, et al. ivit Action . .
; } ton or all the judges ind parties the v. Beatrice Foods Co. et al. No. 74-2084	1 N 5 x) 1
; volve in coordinating iscovery in ! re District of the District of ): : private treble damage actions with that EY ): in the Govern riminal ¢ ivil ac- : RT .
: ir the Gover ment ¢ minal and cl LS Yorkshire Apartment Co., et al. v. Civil Action - os‘tions. Because neither of the Govern- geatrice. Foods Co. et al. No. 74-1160 Co
: : 3. In Yn re Government Auto Fleet Sales An- 4, See, c. g., In re Ampicillin Antitrust. Litiga- ~ :. x titrust| Litigation, 328 F.Supp. 218 (Jud. tion, 315 F.Supp. 317, 319 (Jud. Pan.Mult,
to Pan. Mult Lit.1971), we transferred geveral - Lit.1070) and Iu re Mutual Fond Sales Anti-
: Co private treble damage actions to the North- trust Litigntiou, 361 F.Supp. G38, 610 (Jud.
HE ern District of INinois although Government PanMult.Lit.1973) (transfer to situs of
. 3 civil and criminal actious were pending in Government civil nection); In re West Coast
. the Eastern District of Michigan, Unlike Bakery Flour Antitrust Titigation, 268 ¥.the instaut litigation, however, none of the Supp. 808, 809 (Jud. Pan. Malt Lit 1874) aud ] .
private ‘actions was pending in the Lastern In re Refrigerant Gas Antitrust Litigation,
District of Michigan at the time the ovder of 434 F.Supp. 996, 998 (Jud. Pan Mult Lit,
transfer was entered, Id. nt 219-220. 1971) (transfor to situs of Government
. ’ - eriminal action).
~ ’ g ’
of . “4 N . . .
i 1
$y - ' : -