IN RE: Multi-Piece Rim Products Liability Litigation

) a. Case MDL No. 362 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 1 of 34
: [ REE IERY ; BE :
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL Pe
ON Jor aro : ’ Lo : BA -
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION ni 18 197 IE EEE
PATRInI mean Poo
In re Multi-Piece Rim Products )Docket No. 362 CLERA CF i210 Ws Po Pon	Liability Litigation ) £73
OPINION AND ORDER
BEFORE JOHN MINOR WISDOM, CHAIRMAN, AND EDWARD WEINFELD®, RE
EDWIN A. ROBSON*, STANLEY A. WEIGEL, ANDREW A. CAFFREY¥®, BE TE
ROY W. HARPER, AND CHARLES	R. WEINER, JUDGES OF THE PANEL. } y
PER CURIAM IEICE
I. BACKGROUND
This litigation consists of nineteen actions pending EE EB .
in fourteen federal districts. The distribution of a Ce
these actions is as follows: EE
Western District of Missouri 4
. Northern District of Alabama 2 Ce
Eastern District of Michigan 2 Ss :
Western District of Kentucky 1
District of Maryland 1
District of Massachusetts 1 :
Southern District of Mississippi 1
District of Nevada 1
District of New Hampshire 1
District of Oregon 1
Western District of Tennessee 1
Northern District of Texas 1
Southern District of Texas 1 .
Southern District of West Virginia 1 Co CT
* Judges Weinkfeld, Robson and Caffrey did not participate :
in the decision of this matter.

Case MDL No. 362 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 20f 34° °°
—2- CL
These actions have all been brought to recover CRRA
| compensation for personal injuries or wrongful death a
| allegedly resulting from, among other causes, the failure [EC
and separation of a multi-piece truck wheel (rim and
tire assembly). The complaints in eighteen of these Co
actions allege that a multi-piece rim assembly separated Co SE
. under pressure and flew apart with explosive force R
during tire inflation, mounting of an inflated wheel co
on a vehicle, or removal of an inflated wheel from :
a vehicle. Plaintiffs or plaintiffs’ decedents in .
these eighteen actions were individuals who were in Co Co
the proximity of the wheel when it separated, either E .
as service persons or bystanders. The complaint in : Lo
the nineteenth action (the Oregon action) alleges that I
a multi-piece rim assembly separated during operation SE
of the vehicle on which the rim was being used, causing
the vehicle to go out of control and strike an oncoming : :
vehicle containing plaintiff and plaintiff's decedent. |
In each action, one or more of the following four manufac- IEE
turers of multi-piece rim components are named as oo
defendants: Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. (fourteen 3
actions), Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. (eight actions),
Kelsey-Hayes Co. (three actions) and Redco Corp. (one oo
action). Either Firestone or Goodyear is a defendant ‘
in every action. Besides the four manufacturers of Co Co

- . Case MDL No. 362 Docadwent2 Filed 05/04/15 Page	3 of 34
: multi-piece rim components, 21 other defendants
are named in these actions, nineteen of which are named
in only one action and two of which are named in two
actions. These additional defendants include, in specific
actions, the manufacturer of the tire which was included
in the wheel assembly; the employers of plaintiff or
plaintiff's decedent; and the manufacturers and/or owners
14
of the vehicle on which the wheel was located.
1/ A summary of the specific type of accident alleged and the
C defendants named in each of the nineteen ections follows:Name of Action District Type of Accident Defendants
Hale W.D. Missouri Rims separated Firestone
during inflation,
striking plaintiff
and injuring him
Goodwin W.D. Missouri Rims separated Firestone,
while wheel was Goodyear
being mounted on a
truck, striking and
killing plaintiff's
decedent
Butler W.D. Missouri Rims separated Firestone,
while wheel was Gocdyear
being mounted on a
truck, striking
plaintiff and
injuring him
Walker W.D. Missouri Rims separated Firestone,
while wheel was plaintiff's
being mounted on a employer
truck, striking
rlaintiff and
injuring him
(continued on next page)

Case MDL No. 362 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 4 of 34 : :
4
Plaintiffs allege a number of theories of relief
against the various defendants in these actions. The
McGee N.D. Alabama Rims separated Gocdyear,
while wheel was tire manu-
being removed from facturer,
a fork-lift, fork-lift
striking plaintiff manufacturer,
and injuring him plaintiff's
employers
Clayton N.D. Alabama Rims separated Firestone,
during inflation, Kelsey-
striking plaintiff Hayes
and injuring him
Mawby E.D. Michigan Rims separated Firestone
while wheel was
being mounted on a
vehicle, striking
plaintiff and
injuring him
Johnson E.D. Michigan Rims separated Firestone
after inflation,
striking plaintiff
and injuring him
Henderson W.D. Kentucky Rims separated Firestcne,
during inflation tire manu-
of a wheel mounted facturer,
on a vehicle, truck
striking plaintiff manufacturer
and injuring him
Lantisar: D. Maryland Rims separated Gocdyear,
while wheel was tire manu-
being mounted on a facturer
truck, striking
plaintiff and
injuring him
3arry D. Massachusetts Rims separated Firestore
during inflation,
striking plaintiff
and injuring him C
(continued on next page)

: . Case MDL No. 362 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page	5 of 34
allegations against the manufacturers of multi-piece
C rim components generally concern defects in the design
Smith S.D. Mississippi Rims separated Firestone,
during inflation, Redco,
striking plaintiff tire manu-
and injuring him facturer,
plaintiff's
employers
Olsen D. Nevada Rims separated Goodyear
during inflation,
striking plaintiff
and injuring him
Dupuis D. New Hampshire Rims separated Firestcme
during removal of a
wheel from a truck,
striking plaintiff
and injuring him
Petersen D. Oregon Wheel failed while Firestone,
C vehicle was being tire manu-	driven, causing facturer
vehicle to go out
of control and
strike an oncoming
automobile contain-
ing plaintiff and
plaintiff's decedent
Davis W.D. Tennessee Rims separated Firestone,
during inflation Kelsey-
of a wheel mounted Hayes
on a vehicle,
striking and killing
plaintiff's decedent
Brown N.D. Texas Rims separated Geodyear,
while wheel was tire manu-
being mounted on a facturer,
vehicle, striking plaintiff's
plaintiff and employers
injuring him
(continued on next page)

Case MDL No. 362 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 6 of 34. : .
-6-
and manufacture of multi-piece rim components and failure ®
to warn adequately of the risks involved with multi-piece
rim assemblies. All parties agree that in some instances
multi-piece rim components manufactured by different
defendants can be used interchangeably.
In addition, the complaints in three of the Missouri
actions (Hale, Goodwin and Butler) allege that Firestone
and/or Goodyear 1) failed	to advise the United States
Department of Transportation of the hazards associated
with use of multi-piece rims and intentionally minimized
the frequency and severity of personal injuries caused
by multi-piece rims in testimony before the Department
of Transportation; 2) withheld information from and ®gave misinformation to the Department of Transportation
concerning the feasibility of a recall and retrofit
of multi-piece rims; 3) maintained a political slush
fund to make illegal payments for the purpose ¢f avoiding
a recall of multi-piece rims; and 4) conspired with
other manufacturers to withhold the dissemination of
adequate safety warnings concerning multi-piece rims.
Rodriguez S.D. Texas Rims separated Firestone,
during inflation Goodyear
of a wheel mounted
on a vehicle,
striking plaintiff
and injuring him
Walker S.D. West Rims separated Goodyear,
Virginia while wheel was owners
being mounted on of vehicle
a vehicle,
striking and
killing
plaintiff's
decedent

. : Case MDL No. 362 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page	7 of 34
II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE PANEL
The Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407(c)	(i) and
Rule 8, R.P.J.P.M.L., 78 F.R.D. 561, 566-67 (1978),
ordered the parties to show cause why eighteen of these
nineteen actions should not be transferred to a single
district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial pro-
ceedings.2/ Plaintiffs in eleven actions (including
plaintiffs in the three Missouri actions containing
the additional allegations against Firestone and/or
Goodyear) favor transfer. Plaintiffs in ten of these
actions favor selection of the Western District of
® Missouri as the transferee forum. Plaintiff in the
Z7 Anadditional	action included in the Panel's show
cause order has been dismissed -- Super Tire
Engineering Co. v. Goodyear, et al., D.New Jersey, C.A.No.
76-1546. Eons deration of the question of transfer
with respect to this action is therefore moot.
The parties have informed the Panel that another
action included in the Panel's show cause order involves
a single-piece rim rather than a multi-piece rim --
Milton John McLellan, et al. v. Columbus I-70 West Auto-
Truckstop, Inc., et al., N.D.Illinois, C.A.No. 77-C-2535.
This action was therefore excluded from the Panel's
consideration of the question of transfer in this litigation.
The action pending in the District of Maryland
(Lantieri) was not included in the Panel's show cause
order. Plaintiffs in Lantieri, however, requested the
Panel to include Lantieri in the Panel's present consideration
of the question of transfer in this litigation. Because
the other parties to Lantieri are already before the
Panel and have responded to the show cause order, we
have included Lantieri in our present consideration.

Case MDL No. 362 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page	8 of 34 ’ :
-8=
®eleventh action has expressed no view on that issue.
Plaintiffs in five actions and all defendants except
one (which has not responded) oppose transfer. Plaintiffs
in the other three actions have not responded. In
the event transfer is ordered, Goodyear favors selection
of the Northern District of Ohio as the transferee
forum. In the event transfer is ordered, several opponents
also request either that actions in which they are
involved be excluded from transfer because pretrial
proceedings in these actions are well advanced or that
the claims against them be excluded from transfer because
those claims are unrelated to the common factual issues
trvolved in this litigation. C
III. DECISION OF THE PANEL
We find that these actions involve common questions
of fact and that, with the exception of the Oregon
and Mississippi actions, their transfer to the Western
District of Missouri under Section 1407 for coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote
the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.3/
37	Pursuant	to Rule 10(e), R.P.J.P.M.L., supra, 78 F.R.D.
at 568-69, Firestone and Goodvear are ordaTad to keep
the clerk of the Panel informed of any potential tag-along
actions in this litigation. C

. : Case MDL No. 362 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 9 of 34
-9-
®
: Opponents present the following primary arguments
in opposition to transfer in this litization:
1) The questions of fact involved in each action
are primarily individual.
a) A diversity of multi-piece rim components
produced by a diversity of manufacturers is involved.
The design of these rim components, the interlocking
mechanisms and the mounting and demounting procedures
for the rims vary.
b) A diversity of parties is involved as plaintiffs
and defendants. The factual situation with respect
o to most parties is individual to a single action.	¢) The circumstances surrounding each accident
primarily involve factual variables unique to that accident.
2) The factual aspects that may be shared by these
actions with respect to the design and manufacture of
multi-piece rim components are minimal in comparison
to the unique issues involved in each action.
3) Discovery is progressing well in most of these
actions, some of which have been pending for a long
time, are well advanced in discovery, and are nearing
readiness for trial. Transfer would merely delay pretrial
and trial proceedings in these well advanced actions.
® |

Case MDL No. 362 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 10 of 34 : .
-10-
®
On the other hand, proponents of transfer maintain
that all multi-piece rims are essentially the same, for
purposes of this litigation, because they all operate on
the same engineering principle of maintaining a delicate
equilibrium among the multi-piece rim components in order
to keep the rim components from separating and flying apart
under inflation pressure. Proponents assert that the sources
of discovery common to all actions include engineers familiar
with multi-piece rim design, as well as documents and witnesses
from the national trade association of tire and rim manufac-
turers. Several plaintiffs also contend that Firestone
and Goodyear exchanged information concerning whether to ®
distribute certain warning labels for use with multi-piece
rims. In addition, several plaintiffs argue that defendants
have concertedly suppressed evidence concerning the risks
associated with the use of multi-piece rims.
We are persuaded that centralized pretrial proceedings
under Section 1407 are appropriate in this litigation.
We recognize that certain individual factual issues
will be present in each action. Nevertheless, we are
convinced that substantial common factual issues are
present concerning the overall design of multi-piece
rims, the state of knowledge within the industrv of
®

: Case MDL No. 362 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 11 of 34
-11-
® the risks involved with use of multi-piece rims, and
the alleged failure of defendants to warn adequately
of those risks. Centralization pursuant to Section 1407
is necessary in order to prevent duplication of discovery
and eliminate the possibility of conflicting pretrial
rulings concerning these common factual issues. See
In re The Upjohn Co. Antibiotic ''Cleocin'' Products Liability
Litigation, 450 F.Supp. 1168, 1170 (J.P.M.L. 1978).
The transferee judge, of course, has the authority
to group the pretrial proceedings on different discovery
tracks according to the common factual issues or according
o to each defendant if necessary for the just and efficientconduct of the litigation, and to schedule any discovery
unique to particular parties, actions or claims to proceed
in separate discovery tracks concurrently with the common
discovery, thus enhancing the efficient processing of
all aspects of the litigation. See id. Moreover,
no party need participate in pretrial proceedings unrelated
to that party's interests. See, e.g., Parts I and II,
$82.31, Manual for Complex Litigation, (rev. ed. 1977).
On the basis of the record before us, it appears
that discovery has been completed in the Mississippi
action and that discovery on all common factual issues
in this docket has been completed in the Oregon
®

Case MDL No. 362 Documeny 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 12 of 34 ‘ :
action. Accordingly, transfer of these actions would ®
not now be appropriate and they will therefore be excluded
from our transfer order. See In re The Upjohn Co. Antibiotic
"Cleocin" Products Liability Litigation, supra, 450
F.Supp. at 1170. Some parties have argued that additional
actions are also sufficiently advanced to warrant their
exclusion from trans fer.2/ We recognize that all actions
are not at the same stage of discovery, but based on
the information before us, we conclude that the remaining
actions in this litigation will all benefit from transfer
under Section 1407. We further decline all requests
for the separation and remand of the claims against
specific parties because we are unable to determine C
from the record presently before us whether any of those
claims are sufficiently distinct to warrant their exclusion
from the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Although we are sensitive to the requests of these individual
parties, we believe these requests should be addressed
to the transferee judge following transfer. The transferee
judge will be in the best position, in connection with
Z7 One of thoseactions is the Walker action in the Western
District of Missouri. Since Walker	is pending in the district
we have selected as the transferee district for this litigation,
we leave to the transferee judge the determination of whether
or to what extent Walker should be included in the coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings. See In re National CAirlines, Inc. Maternity Leave Practices and Flight Attendant
deight Program Litigation, 399 F.Supp. 1405, T1407 (J.P.M.L.

. : Case MDL No. 362 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 13 of 34
-13-
®
the organization of the pretrial program in this litigation,
to determine which, if any, actions or claims are susceptible
to immediate separation and remand. See In re Midwest
Milk Monopolization Litigation, 386 F.Supp. 1401, 1403
(J.P.M.L. 1975). If and when the transferee judge determines
that any action or claim is, in fact, ready for trial,
or otherwise ready for remand because the common pretrial
proceedings pertaining to that action or claim have
been completed and the action or claim would no longer
benefit from inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated
C pretrial proceedings, the transferee judge may suggestto the Panel that the Panel remand the action or claim
to its transferor district. See 28 U.S.C. §1407(a);
Rule 11 (¢)(ii), R.P.J.P.M.L., supra, 78 F.R.D. at 569.
See, e.g. In re A.H. Robins Co., Inc. "Dalkon Shield"
IUD Products Liability Litigation, 453 F.Supp. 108 (J.P.M.L.
1978). And, of course, any relevant common discovery
heretofore completed in any action or actions may be
made applicable to all actions by utilizing the procedures
recommended in the Manual for Complex Litigation, supra,
Parts I and II, §§3.11.
®

Case MDL No. 362 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 14 of 34 : :
-14- C
IV. SELECTION OF THE TRANSFEREE DISTRICT
We find that the Western District of Missouri is
the most appropriate transferee forum for this litigation.
The Honorable William R. Collinson, through his supervision
of the four actions now pending there and a prior related
action, has already become familiar with the issues involved
in this litigation and is therefore in the best position
to supervise it to a just and expeditious conclusion.
See In re Gas Meter Antitrust Litigation, F.Supp.____,
(J.P.M.L., filed Jan. 9, 1979) (slip opinion at 6);
In re Griseofulvin Antitrust Litigation, 395 F.Supp. C1402, 1403 (J.P.M.L. 1975). In addition, because the
actions presently before the Panel are pending throughout
the country and the parties represent that discovery
will be nationwide, the geographically central location
of Missouri is a commendable factor. Also, more actions
are pending in that district than in any other federal
district. See In re A.H. Robins Co., Inc. "Dalkon Shield"
IUD Products Liability Litigation, 406 F.Supp. 540,
543 (J.P.M.L. 1975).
@

- - Case MDL No. 362 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 15 of 34 |
° 5
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that transfer pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §1407 of the actions entitled Odis Daniel
Smith, et al. v. Adams Laboratories, Inc,, et al., S.D. Miss.,
C.A. No. J76-228 (N), and Gladys Fay Petersen v. Michelin
Tire Corp., et al., D. Oregon, C.A. No. 77-0057, be,
and the same hereby is, DENIED, and the Panel's show cause
order be, and the same hereby is, VACATED insofar as
it relates to these actions.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 286 U.S.C.
§1407, the remaining actions listed on the following
Schedule A and pending in districts other than the Western
® District of Missouri be, and the same hereby are, transferred
to the Western District of Missouri and, with the consent
of that court, assigned to the Honorable William R.
Collinson for coordinated or consolidated pretrial pro-
ceedings with the actions listed on Schedule A and pending
there.
®

: = Case MDL No. 362 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 16 of 34
® Schadula A DOCEET NO. 362DORTEZRN DISTRICT OF ATABAMA Civil Action No.
Gall McGee, etc., et al. wv. Goodyear Tire Ca78-P0090s
& Ruober Co., et al. .
Thomas Clayton, et al. v. The Firestone Tire CA78-G0396S& Rubber Co., et al. *®
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY	DE	SNE A 2 SUR VACHS 4
Ma T+ I R } )
_,_	on Henderson, at al. v. The C78-0002-BGtifescone Tire & Rubber Co., et al.
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS : : :
Paul R. Zarry v. Firestone Tire &
Rubber Co. 77-2796-G
~ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI Co
- dis Daniel Smith, et al. v. Adams J76-228 (N)
Qi Inc., et al, .
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
Larry Hale, et al. v. Firestone Tire 78-0266-CV-W-2
.-& Pubker.	Co. :
’ Bekby C. Goodwin, et al. v. Firestone 78-0408-CV-W~-1
" Tire & Rubber Co., et al.
Joseph W. Butler v. Firestone 78=-0647-CV-W—-2
Tire & Rubber Co., et al. So Ce
© Rchert E. Walker,	et al. v. 75CV363-W-2
Pirastone Tire & Rubber Co.
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND |
Richard W. Lantieri, et al. v. CGoodvear Y78-1469
Tire & Ruboer Co., et al.

Case MDL No. 362 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 17 of 34 : x
Schedule 2 —-Cont. p.2 DOCKET NO. 262 CDISTRICT CF NEVEDA Civil Action Yo.
John L. Olsen v. Gecodvear Tire 77-0197-HEC
& Rubber Co., et al.
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Patrick Dupuis v. Firestone Tire C-76-321
& Rubber Co.
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
Marion Tavlor Davis, et al. v. C=78-2182
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., et.al.
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Joe B. Brown, etc. v. Goodyear Tire & CA3-78-0556-D
Rubber Co., et al.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS C
Luciano Rodriguez, etc. v. Firestone Tire H-77-288
-& Rubber Co., et al.
© SOUTZERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
¥M=2dlyn Walker v. Chemical Leaman Tank 76~0350CH
iines, Inc., et.al.
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Edward & Maxine Mawby v. Firestone | 870616
Steel Products Co.
Larry Johnson v. Firestone Tire 871602
& Rubber Co., Inc.
DISTRICT OF CREGCON
Gladys Fav Petersen v. Michelin Tire 77-0057
Cerone, et zl.

Ce . Case MDL No. 362 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 18 of 34 :
. Loopy SIs, I ’ a Te: CT Te, FE
| Rie,
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL | | vs EC TCR REON iy Toe IE
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION Gira. aSpiny ie A Co
In re Multi-Piece Rim Products )Docket No. 362 RESTA :
Liability Litigation ) RN
OPINION AND ORDER | y/ oo_ CZ J
BEFORE JOHN MINOR WISDOM, CHAIRMAN, AND EDWARD WEINFELD*, FER
EDWIN A. ROBSON*, STANLEY A. WEIGEL, ANDREW A. CAFFREY%*, ES i.
ROY W. HARPER, AND CHARLES R. WEINER, JUDGES OF THE PANEL. A
PER CURIAM oT Co
I. BACKGROUND : J
his litigation consists of nineteen actions pending CL
in fourteen federal districts. The distribution of . oo Co
these actions is as follows: EEE oo
Western District of Missouri 4 Co . co
Northern District of Alabama 2 Co
Eastern District of Michigan 2
Western District of Kentucky 1 ;
District of Maryland 1 Lo
District of Massachusetts 1 Co
Southern District of Mississippi 1 :
District of Nevada } 1 Co
District of New Hampshire 1
District of Oregon 1
Western District of Tennessee 1
Northern District of Texas 1 Ce
Southern District of Texas 1 .
Southern District of West Virginia 1
* JudgesWeinfeld,	Robson and Caffrey did not participate
in the decision of this matter. :

: a Case MDL No. 362 Document2-Filed 05/04/15 Page 19 of 34 ) "I
CY These actions have all been brought to recover
compensation for personal injuries or wrongful death
allegedly resulting from, among other causes, the failure .
and separation of a multi-piece truck wheel (rim and
tire assembly). The complaints in eighteen of these
actions allege that a multi-piece rim assembly separated
under pressure and flew apart with explosive force
during tire inflation, mounting of an inflated wheel
on a vehicle, or removal of an inflated wheel from .
a vehicle. Plaintiffs or plaintiffs’ decedents in
these eighteen actions were individuals who were in .
the proximity of the wheel when it separated, either
o as service persons or bystanders. The complaint in 0
the nineteenth action (the Oregon action) alleges that
a multi-piece rim assembly separated during operation
of the vehicle on which the rim was being used, causing
: the vehicle to go out of control and strike an oncoming
vehicle containing plaintiff and plaintiff's decedent. oo
In each action, one or more of the following four manufac
turers of multi-piece rim components are named as
defendants: Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. (fourteen
| actions), Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. (eight actions),
Kelsey-Hayes Co. (three actions) and Redco Corp. (one : }
action). Either Firestone or Goodyear is a defendant
® every action. Besides the four manufacturers of

Ce -3- : : :YT Case MDL No. 362 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 20 of 34
multi-piece rim components, 21 other defendants ;
are named in these actions, nineteen of which are named
in only one action and two of which are named in two
actions. These additional defendants include, in specific
actions, the manufacturer of the tire which was included
in the wheel assembly; the employers of plaintiff or
plaintiff's decedent; and the manufacturers and/or owners
1 vo
of the vehicle on which the wheel was located.
i EEE a — .
\ 1/ A summary of the specific type of accident alleged and the
defendants named in each of the nineteen actions follows: -
Name of Action District Type of Accident Defendants
Hale W.D. Missouri Rims separated - Firestone
during inflation,
striking plaintiff
ard injuring him
Goodwin W.D. Missouri Rims separated Firestone,
. while wheel was Goodyear
being mounted on a
truck, striking and }
: killing plaintiff's
: decedent
Butler W.D. Missouri Rims separated Firestone,
Ce - while wheel was Gocdyearbeing mounted on a :
truck, striking
: plaintiff ang
injuring him :
Walker W.D. Missouri Rims separated Firestone,
—_— while wheel wag plaintiff's
: being mounted cn a employer
truck, striking
rlaintiff and
injuring him
(continued on next page)

. . ° } . - ke $: - ‘ Case MDL No. 362 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 21 of 34 ’
: : | —4- |
i Plaintiffs allege a number of theories of relief
against the various defendants in these actions. The
——— .
‘McGee N.D. Alatama Rims separated Goodyear,
: while wheel was tire manu-
being removed from facturer,
a fork-lift, fork-1lift
striking plaintiff manufacturer,
and injuring him plaintiff's
employers.
Clayton N.D. Alabama = Rims separated Firestone,
during inflation, Kelsey-
striking plaintiff Hayes
-and injuring him
Mawby E.D. Michigan Rims separated Firestone |
: while wheel was
: being mourted on a
:. vehicle, striking
plaintiff and
injuring him
Johnson E.D. Michigan Rims separated Firestore
after inflation, .
striking plaintiff
: ‘and injuring him
Henderson W.D. Kentucky Rims separated Firestcne,
” during inflation tire manu-
of a wheel mounted facturer,
on a vehicle, truck
striking plaintiff manufacturer
and injuring him :
Lantiaci D. Maryland Rims separated - Gocdyear,
while wheel was tire manu-
being mounted on a facturer
truck, striking
plaintiff and
injuring him
3arry ~.D. Massachusetts Rims separated ~ Firestone
during inflation,
o striking plaintiffand injuring him
(continued on next page)

ST Case MDL No. 362 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 22 of 34 ) :oC a : 5
$ -allegations against the manufacturers of multi-piece
rim components generally concern defects in the design
Smith S.D. Mississippi Rims separated Firestone,
during inflation, Redco,
striking plaintiff tire mapu-
and injuring him facturer,
plaintiff's
: employers
Olsen D. Nevada ‘Rims separated . GoodyearEE : during inflation,
striking plaintiff
and injuring him
Dupuis D. New Hampshire Rims separated Firestcne
during removal of a
: : wheel from a truck,
striking plaintiff
and injuring him
C Petersen D. Oregon “Wheel failed while Firestone,= vehicle was being tire manu-
driven, causing facturer
vehicle to go out
of control and
strike an oncoming
automcbile cortain-
so ing plaintiff and
h plaintiff's decedent
Davis W.D. Tennessee Rims separated Firestone,during inflation Kelsey
of a wheel mounted Hayes
on a vehicle,
striking and killing
plaintiff's decedent ST
Brown no N.D. Texas Rims separated Goodyear,
while wheel was tire manu-
being mounted on a facturer,
vehicle, striking plaintiff's
plaintiff and employers
injuring him
(continued on next page) :

. . Case MDL No. 362 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 23 of 34 ot “Y
Co | —6-
and manufacture of multi-piece rim components and failure
to warn adequately of the risks involved with multi-piece
rim assemblies. All parties agree that in some instances
multi-piece rim components manufactured by different
defendants can be used interchangeably. :
In addition, the complaints in three of the Missouri -
actions (Hale, Goodwin and Butler) allege that Firestone
and/or Goodyear 1) failed	to advise the United States
Department of Transportation of the hazards associated
with use of multi-piece rims and intentionally minimized
the frequency and severity of personal injuries caused
by multi-piece rims in testimony before the Department
® of Transportation; 2) withheld information from and
gave misinformation	to the Department	of Transportation
concerning the feasibility of a recall and retrofit
of multi-piece rims; 3) maintained a political slush
. fund to make illegal payments for the purpose of avoiding
a recall of multi-piece rims; and 4) conspired with
other manufacturers to withhold the dissemination of
adequate safety warnings concerning multi-piece rims.
Rodriguez S.D. Texas Rims separated Firestone,
- during inflation Goodyear
| of a wheel mcunted
on a vehicle,
: striking plaintiff
Co and injuring him
® Walker S.D. West i Rims separated Goodyear,	Virginia while wheel was owners
oo being mounted on -of vehicle
a vehicle,
striking and
killing
plaintiff's

Po Case MDL No. 362 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 24 of 34
II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE PANEL
The Panel, pursuant	to 238 U.S.C. $1407(c)(i) and
Rule 3, R.P.J.P.M.L., 78 F.R.D. 561, 566-67 (1978),
ordered the parties to show cause why eighteen of these
nineteen actions should not be transferred to a single
district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial pro-
ceedings.2/ Plaintiffs in eleven actions (including
plaintiffs in the three Missouri actions containing
the additional allegations against Firestone and/or
Goodyear) favor transfer. Plaintiffs in ten of these :
actions favor selection	of the Western District of
o Missouri as the transferee forum. Plaintiff in the
Z/ An additional action included in the Panel's show
cause order has been dismissed -- Super Tire :
Engineering Co. v. Goodyear, et al., D.New Jersey, C.A.No. :
76-1546. fons deration of the question of transfer
with respect to this action is therefore moot. .
The parties have informed the Panel that another
action included in the Panel's show cause order involves
a single-piece rim rather than a multi-piece rim —-
Milton John McLellan, et al. v. Columbus I-70 West Auto-
Truckstop, Inc., et al., N.D.TIlinois, C.A.No. 77-C-2535.
This action was therefore excluded from the Panel's
consideration of the question of transfer in this litigation.
The action pending in the District of Maryland
(Lantieri) was not included in the Panel's show cause
order. Plaintiffs in Lantieri, however, requested the
Panel to include Lantieri in the Panel's present consideration
of the question of transfer in this litigation. Because
the other parties to Lantieri are already before the
Panel and have responded to the show cause order, we
® have included Lantieri in our present consideration.

CL Case MDL No. 362 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 25 of 34 ToT
o eleventh action has expressed no view on that issue. :
Plaintiffs in five actions and all defendants except
one (which has not responded) oppose transfer. Plaintiffs :
in the other three actions have not responded. In
the event transfer is ordered, Goodyear favors selection
of the Northern District of Ohio as the transferee
forum. In the event transfer is ordered, several opponents
also request either that actions in which they are
involved be excluded from transfer because pretrial
proceedings in these actions are well advanced or that
the claims against them be excluded from transfer pecause
C those claims are unrelated to the common factual issuesinvolved in this litigation.
III. DECISION OF THE PANEL oo
We find that these actions involve common questions
of fact and that, with the exception of the Oregon
and Mississippi actions, their transfer to the Western
District of Missouri under Section 1407 for coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote
the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.3/
37	Pursuant	to Rule 1078), R.P.J.P.M.L., supra, 78 F.R.D.
@: 568-69, Firestone and Goodyear are ordered to keep	the clerk of the Panel informed of any potential tag-along
actions in this litigation.

. SE Case MDL No. 362 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 26 of 34 :
® | oo . -9- |
Opponents present the following primary arguments
in opposition to transfer in this litigation:
1) The questions of fact involved in each action
are primarily individual.
a) A diversity of multi-piece rim components
produced by a diversity of manufacturers is involved. :
The design of these rim components, the interlocking
‘mechanisms and the mounting and demounting procedures
for the rims vary. no
b) A diversity of parties is involved as plaintiffs
and defendants. The factual situation with respect
0 to most parties is individual to a single action.
c) The circumstances surrounding each accident
primarily involve factual variables unique to that accident.
2) The factual aspects that may be shared by these
actions with respect to the design and manufacture of
multi-piece rim components are minimal in comparison
to the unique issues involved in each action.
3) Discovery is progressing well in most of these |
actions, some of which have been pending for a long
time, are well advanced in discovery, and are nearing |
readiness for trial. Transfer would merely delay pretrial |
and trial proceedings in these well advanced actions.
® |

} a Case MDL No. 362 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 27 of 34 - :
_ : -10-
On the other hand, proponents of transfer maintain
that all multi-piece rims are essentially the same, for
purposes of this litigation, because they all operate on
the same engineering principle of maintaining a delicate
equilibrium among the multi-piece rim components in order
to keep the rim components from separating and flying apart
under inflation pressure. Proponents assert that the sources
of discovery common to all actions include engineers familiar |
with multi-piece rim design, as well as documents and witnesses
| from the national trade association of tire and rim manufac-
C turers. Several plaintiffs also contend that Firestone‘and Goodyear exchanged information concerning whether to ~~
distribute certain warning labels for use with multi-piece
rims. In addition, several plaintiffs argue that defendants
. have concertedly suppressed evidence concerning the risks
associated with the use of multi-piece rims. |
We are persuaded that centralized pretrial proceedings
under Section 1407 are appropriate in this litigation.
We recognize that certain individual factual issues
will be present in each action. Nevertheless, we are
convinced that substantial common factual issues are |
present concerning the overall design of multi-piece
® rims, the state of knowledge within the industry of

- ~ Case MDL No. 362 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 28 of 34
_ | ~11-
® the risks involved with use of multi-piece rims, and |
the alleged failure of defendants to warn adequately
of those risks. Centralization pursuant to Section 1407 |
is necessary in order to prevent duplication of discovery
and eliminate the possibility of conflicting pretrial
rulings concerning these common factual issues. See
In re The Upjohn Co. Antibiotic "Cleocin'" Products Liability-
Litigation, 450 F.Supp. 1168, 1170 (J.P.M.L. 1978).
The transferee judge, of course, has the authority .
to group the pretrial proceedings on different discovery
tracks according to the common factual issues or according
C to each defendant if necessary for the just and efficient
conduct of the litigation, and to schedule any discovery
unique to particular parties, actions or claims to proceed
in separate discovery tracks concurrently with the common
discovery, thus enhancing the efficient processing of |
all aspects of the litigation. See id. Moreover,
no party need participate in pretrial proceedings unrelated
to that party's interests. See, e.g., Parts I and II,
$52.31, Manual for Complex Litigation, (rev. ed. 1977).
On the basis of the record before us, it appears
+ that discovery has been completed in the Mississippi
action and that discovery on all common factual issues
CB this docket has been completed in the Oregon

. : Case MDL No. 362 Documgnt2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 29 of 34 - .
- action. Accordingly, transfer of these actions would
not now be appropriate and they will therefore be excluded
from our transfer order. See In re The Upjohn Co. Antibiotic|
'""Cleocin" Products Liability Litigation, supra, 450
F.Supp. at 1170. Some parties have argued that additional
actions are also sufficiently advanced to warrant their
exclusion from eransfer./ We recognize that all actions
are not at the same stage of discovery, but based on
the information before us, we conclude that the remaining :
actions in this litigation will all benefit from transfer :
under Section 1407. We further decline all requests | :
C for the separation and remand of the claims against |specific parties because we are unable to determine
from the record presently before us whether any of those
claims are sufficiently distinct to warrant their exclusion
. from the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Although we are sensitive to the requests of these individual
parties, we believe these requests should be addressed
to the transferee judge following transfer. The transferee
judge will be in the best position, in connection with
47 One of thoseactions is the Walker action in the Western
District of Missouri. Since Walker	is pending in the district
we have selected as the transferee district for this litigation,
@: leave to the transferee judge the determination of whether	or to what extent Walker should be included in the coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings. See In re National
Airlines, Inc. Maternity Leave Practices	and Flight Attendant
UeIght Program Litigation. 399 F.Supp 1205 T4071 Fant

Lt E Case MDL No. 362 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 30 of 34
-13- . oo
the organization of the pretrial program in this litigation,
to determine which, if any, actions or claims are susceptible
to immediate separation and remand. See In re Midwest
Milk Monopolization Litigation, 386 F.Supp. 1401, 1403
(J.P.M.L. 1975). If and when the transferee judge determines
that any action or claim is, in fact, ready for trial,
or otherwise ready for remand because the common pretrial B
proceedings pertaining to that action or claim have
been completed and the action or claim would no longer
benefit from inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated
® pretrial proceedings, the transferee judge may suggest
to the Panel that the Panel remand the action or claim |
to its transferor district. See 28 U.S.C. §1407(a);
Rule 11 (e¢)(ii), R.P.J.P.M.L., supra, 78 F.R.D. at 569.
See, e.g., In re A.H. Robins Co., Inc. '"Dalkon Shield"
IUD Products Liability Litigation, 453 F.Supp. 108 (J.P.M.L.
1978). And, of course, any relevant common discovery E
heretofore completed in any action or actions may be :
made applicable to all actions by utilizing the procedures
recommended in the Manual for Complex Litigation, supra,
Parts I and IT, §§3.11.
o :

Co Case MDL No. 362 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 31 of 34 ) )
@® . —14— | .
IV. SELECTION OF THE TRANSFEREE DISTRICT
We find that the Western District of Missouri is
| the most appropriate transferee forum for this litigation.
The Honorable William R. Collinson, through his supervision
of the four actions now pending there and a prior related
action, has already become familiar with the issues involved
in this litigation and is therefore in the best position
to supervise it to a just and expeditious conclusion.
See In re Gas Meter Antitrust Litigation, — F.Supp. ,
(J.P.M.L., filed Jan. 9, 1979) (slip opinion at 6);
C In re Griseofulvin Antitrust Litigation, 395 F.Supp.
1402, 1403 (J.P.M.L. 1975). In addition, because the :
actions presently before the Panel are pending throughout
the country and the parties represent that discovery
will be nationwide, the geographically central location
of Missouri is a commendable factor. Also, more actions
are pending in that district than in any other federal
district. See In re A.H. Robins Co., Inc. '""Dalkon Shield"
IUD Products Liability Litigation, 406 F.Supp. 540,
543 (J.P.M.L. 1975). :
® |

. Ce Case MDL No. 362 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 32 of 34
® ase |
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that transfer pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §1407 of the actions entitled Odis Daniel
Smith, et al. v, Adams Laboratories, Inc., et al., S.D. Miss. ,
C.A. No. J76-~228 (w) , and Gladys Fay Petersen v. Michelin
Tire Corp., et al., D. Oregon, C.A. No. 77-0057, be,
and the same hereby is, DENIED, and the Panel's show cause
order be, and the same hereby is, VACATED insofar as
it relates to these actions. .
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. :
§1407, the remaining actions listed on the following
C Schedule A and pending in districts other than the Western .
District of Missouri be, and the same hereby are, transferred
to the Western District of Missouri and, with the consent
of that court, assigned to the Honorable William R.
~~ Collinson for coordinated or consolidated pretrial pro-
| ceedings with the actions listed on Schedule A and pending
there.
® a

- | o Case MDL No. 362 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 33 of 34
® | Schedule A DOCKET NO. 362
- NORTEZRN DISTRICT OF ATABAMA Civil Action No	ee Sy Ee TY ZL SCClon Noo
Gail McGee, etc., et al. v : ). .y - V. Goodyear Tire Ca7g-p
& Rubber Co., et al. . Y Lire | ~200508
Thomas clayton, et al. v. The pj . .
: Y . - V. Firestone Cc -G03
& Rubber Co., et zl. Tire Are G0396s
WESTERN DISTRICT	OF KENTUCKY
Melton Eenderson, et al v. Th :Tirest . tT © Ue sue C78- —-BG
Llrestonae Tire & Rubber Co., et al. 0002-pRG -
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS L BEaoa Rill OF MASSACHUSETTS
Paul R. Zarry v. Firestone Tire & : .
Rubber Co. 77-2796-G .
©. SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI }
SER RE
@-. Daniel Smith, et al. v. Adams J76-228 (N)Laboratories, Inc., et al. Lo
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURT	Sho obhhyDISIRICT	OF MISSOURI
“Larry Hale, et al. v. Firestone Tire 78-0266-CV-H-2
. -&-Pubber.	Co. d a. . }
" Borzby C. Goodwin, et al. wv. Firestone : - 78-0408-CV-W-1
' Tire & Rubber Co., et al. - ) i
~ Josepn W. Butler v. Firestone 78-0647 ~CV~1-2
Tire & Rubber Co., et al. - ) Co Co.
Robert E. Walker,	et al. v. 75CV353-1-2. Pirgstone Tire & Rubber Co. :
: DISTRICT OF MARVIAND .
Ricnard W. Lantieri, et al. v. Goodyear Y78-1469
Tire & Rubzer Co., et al. -

EE Case MDL No. 362 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page	34 of 34 co
@-- a —— Cont. p-2 DOCKET NO. 252 :
DISTRICT OF NEVEDA Civil Action ¥o
Jonn IL. Olsen v. Gecodyear Tire 77-0187-HEC oo
& Rubpar Co., et al.
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE |
Patrick Dupuls v. Firestone Tire C-76-321,
& Rubber Co. : : :
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
Marion Tavlor Davis, et al. v. C378-2182
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., et.al.
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS oo :
Joe B. Brown, etc. v. Goodyear Tire & CA3~78-0556-D oo
Rubber Co., et al.
® SOUTH=ZRN DISTRICT QF TEXAS
' Tuciano Rodriguez, etc. v. Firestone Tire H~77-288
-& Rubber Co., et zal.
© SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WeST VIRGINIA }
¥Madlyn Walker v. Chemical Leaman Tank . 76-0350CH
Lines, Inc., et.al.
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHICGREN ~ ’
Edward & Maxine Mawby v. Firestone 870616
Steel Products Co. )
Larry Johnson v. Firestone Tire 871602
& Rubber Co., Inc. :
DISTRICT OF QREGON
oO: Fav Petersan	vv. Michelin Tire 77-0057CD., 2° zl. :
. A