IN RE: "Santa Barbara Like It Is Today" Photograph Copyright Infringement Litigation

. Case MDL No. 450 Document 2 Filed 05/19/15 Page 1 of 4
. * HittEI-E SILT
: HT Lo :
- aT ~ 3 PE : . a
APR 28 158! vo
. i
PATRICIA	BLS ARG
Ramses vast. DOCKET NO. 450 ry” a
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION :
+ IN RE "SANTA BARBARA LIKE IT IS TODAY" COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
LITIGATION ‘
TRANSFER ORDER* SE
Presently before the Panel is a motion, pursuant to ~
28 U.S.C. §1407, brought by plaintiff in the 33 actions ST
listed on the attached Schedule A for centralization of I
the actions in a single district for coordinated or consolidatedpretrial proceedings.=" Movant originally favored selection
of the District of Nevada as transferee forum but subsequently
has suggested six other forums -- the Southern District
of Iowa, the Central District of California, the Northern ;
District of California, the District of Colorado, the Northern fe SE
District of Illinois, or the Southern District of New York
—-— as more appropriate transferee districts. More than - :
250 defendants have been named in the various actions. _
Of the various defendants who have responded to the motion,
34 oppose transfer and 56 support transfer. Of the 56 defendants
who support transfer, 38 favor selection of the District
of Nevada as the transferee forum, seventeen favor selection ce
of the Central District of California as the transferee Do :
forum, and one expresses no preference.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held,
the Panel finds that these 33 actions involve common questions Nn
of fact and that centralization of the actions under Section
1407 in the District of Nevada will best serve the convenience co
of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient Cee
conduct of the litigation. ARTE CL
In all the actions in this litigation plaintiff alleges E ’ a
that defendants or their agents used certain of his copyrighted
photographs without his permission and/or that defendants
* Judges Andrew A. Caffrey and Frederick A. Daugherty took :
no part in the decision of this matter. . :
1/ Plaintiff's motion included three other actions -- one :
each pending in the Middle District of Florida, the District
of Nevada, and the Northern District of Texas -- that have
been dismissed prior to entry of our decision in this docket.
Accordingly, the question of transfer with respect to those
three actions is moot. If, upon appeal, any of those actions
are reinstated, the Panel will then treat them as potential
tag-along actions pursuant to Rules 1, 9 and 10, R.P.J.P.M.L.,
78 F.R.D. 561, 562, 567-69 (1978).

. . Case MDL No. 450 Document2 Filed 05/19/15 Page	2 of 4
or their agents, as part of an effort to conceal the purported
® copyright infringements, entered into a conspiracy to boycott
plaintiff's business. Transfer under Section 1407 is necessary
in order to avoid duplicative discovery on the factual questions
raised by these allegations. Some opponents to transfer
argue, however, that the collateral estoppel and res judicata
effects of already concluded related actions, including
the Nevada action mentioned in footnote 1, supra, will enable
the actions in this litigation to be quickly and summarily
dismissed in the districts in which the actions have been
brought without necessity of transfer. To the extent that
a method of summary disposition may be possible in this
litigation, centralization under Section 1407 will conserve
judicial resources by requiring only one judge to rule on
motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment, and
will at the same time eliminate	the risk of inconsistent
rulings. }
Although we are of the view that either the Central
District of California or the District of Nevada could be
described as an appropriate transferee forum for this liti-
gation, on balance, we conclude that the District of Nevada
is preferable. Judge Roger D. Foley, to whom the Nevada
action noted in footnote 1, supra, was assigned, has already
developed an extensive familiarity with Lhe factual andlegal issues present in this litigation.2 Judge Foley,
(| therefore, is in the best position to ensure that common
pretrial proceedings in this litigation will be brought
to a just and expeditious conclusion.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1407, the actions listed on the following Schedule A and
pending in districts other than the District of Nevada be,
and the same hereby are, transferred to the District of
Nevada and, with the consent of that court, assigned to
the Honorable Roger D. Foley for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings with the action pending in that district
and listed on Schedule A.
FOR THE PANEL:
Kaerif)
Roy W. Harper
Acting Chairman
2/7 The second Nevada action included in plaintiff's motion,
C which is included in the 33 actions listed on Schedule A,= continues to be assigned to Judge Foley.

J . Case MDL No. 450 Document 2 Filed 05/19/15 Page 3 of 4
) SCHEDULE A
MDL-450 —— In re "Santa Barbara Like It Is Today" Photograph Copyright Litigation
District	of Nevada
Michael R. Wood, etc. v. Santa Barbara Chanber of Commerce, etal., :
C.A. No. 80-373-RDF TT
District of Arizona
: Michael	R. Wood, etc. v. Santa Barbara Charker of Conmerce, et al.,
~C.A. No. 80-906-PHX(WPC) oT oT
Michael R. Wood, etc. v. Santa Barbara Chanbker of Commerce, et al.,
"C.A. No. 80-304—TUC (ACM)
Central District of California
Michael R.Wood, etc. v. Santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce, et al.,
C.A. No. CV80-01102-MRP	(Mx)
Michael	R. Wood, etc. v. MacDonald Group Ltd., et al.,
C.A. No. CvV80-2690-LTL
Eastern District of California
Michael R. Wood, etc. v. Santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce, et al.,"C.A. No. F-8C-252-MDC h
Michael R. Wood, etc. wv. Santa Barbara Chamberof Commerce, et al.,
"C.A. No. $-80-877-LKK
Northern District of California
Michael	R. Wood, etc. v. Santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce, et al.,~	C.A. No. C80-4124-RFP
Southern District of California
Michael R. Wood,etc. v. Senta Barbara Chamber: of Commerce, et al.,
Q C.A. No. 80-1773-E(m) TT
District of Colorado
Michael R. Wood, etc. v. Santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce, et al.,
"TC.A. No. 80-A-1488 TTT TTT
District of Connecticut
Michael R. Wood, etc. v. Santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce, et al.,
~ C.A. No.B-80-482 oT or
District	of the District of Colurbia
Michael	R. Wood, etc. v. Santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce, et al., :
"TC.A. No. 80-2885 TT TT
Northern District of Illinois
Michael R. Wood V. Santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce, et al.,
C.A. No. 80-C-6101 oT TT
Southern Districtof Indiana
Michael R. Wood, etc. v. Santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce, et al.,
C.A. No IP-80-1071-C TTT TT
Southern District	of Iowa
Michael	R. Wood, etc. v. Santa Barbars Chamber of Commerce, et al.,
TC.R. No. 80-442-B oT TTT
Eastern: District	of Michigan
Michael R. Wood, etc. v. Santa Barbara Chamber of Conmrerce, et al.,
C.A. No. 80-74073 TTT TTT
District of Nebraska
Michael	R. Wood, etc. v.Senta Barbara Chamber of Commerce, et al.,
TT C.A. No. 80-L-292 TT :
[ District	of New Jersey~ Michsel	R. Wood, etc. v. Santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce, et al.,
C.A. No. 80-3532 TT oT

Case MDL No. 450 Document 2 Filed 05/19/15 Page 4 of 4
Eastern District of New York
Michael	R. Wood, etc. Vv.Santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce, et al.,
é C.A. No. 80C3053Southern District of New York ’
Michael R. Wood, etc. v. Santa Barbara ChamberofCommerce, et al -)C.A. No. 80 Civ 6479 i
Western District of New York i
Michael R. Wood, etc. v. Santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce, et al “5
C.A. No. 80-1030-B |
Middle District of North Carolina
Michael R. Wood, etc. v. Santa Barbara Chamber: ofCommerce, et al.,
C.A. No.C-80-600-D oo
: Northern District of Ohio :
Michael	R. Wood, etc. v. Santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce, et al.,
C.A. No. C80-2038A CT
: District	of Oregon
Michael R. Wood, etc. v. Santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce, et al.,C.A. No. 80-6385-E TTT
Michael R. Wood, etc. v. Santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce, et al.,
TC.A. No 80-1015 TTT TTT
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Michael R. Wood, etc. v. Santa Barbara Chanber of Commerce, et al.,C.A. No. 80-4292 oT oT
Western District of Pennsylvania
Michael	R. Wood, etc. v. Santa Barbara Chamber: of Commerce, et al.,
C.2.No. CAB0-1571 TT :
Southern District of Texas :
Q Michael R. Wood, etc. v. Santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce, et al.,~ C.A. No. H-80-2481 TT TTT
District of Utah
Michael	R. Wood, etc. v. Santa Barbara Charker of Commerce, et al.,"C.A. No. CB8C-0650A TTT oT
Eastern District of Virginia
Michael R. Wood, etc. Vv. Santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce, et al.,
" C.A. No. 80-1199-N - TTT TT
EasternDistrict of Washington
Michael R. Wood, etc. v. Santa Barbara Chamber ofCommerce, et al.,~ C.A. No. C-80-443-RaM
Western District of Washington
Michael	R. Wood, etc. v. santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce, et al.,~ C.A. No. C80-4S0T TT TT
Michael	R. Wood, etc.	v. Santa Barbara Chamber	of Comrerce, etal.,C.A. No. C80-1147V