IN RE: Storage Technology Securities Litigation

: Case MDL No. 593 Document 2 Filed 06/01/15 Page 1 of 3
- >
Cpr > Lal] fan 3
! JUDICIAL FRIEL SH
oo HULTIOISTRICT LITIGATISN
® FILED	Ju 22 188
{ DOCKET NO. 593 PATRICIA B. HOY. AR
CLERK OF THE PANEL
, BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE STORAGE TECHNOLOGY SECURITIES LITIGATION
TRANSFER ORDER#*
This litigation consists of sixteen actions pending in six federal
districts: five actions in the District of Colorado, four actions
each in the Northern District of California and the District of
Minnesota and one action each in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
the Middle District of Florida and the Southern District of Florida.
Presently before the Panel 1s a motion by twenty defendants to
centralize, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407, the actions in this
litigation in the Northern Districy of California for coordinated orconsolidated pretrial proceedings.— Also before the Panel is a
cross-motion by plaintiffs in four Colorado actions to centralize,
pursuant to Section 1407, the actions in the Distpict of Colorado forcoordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.— No responding
party opposes transfer; the sole dispute among the parties before the
Panel concerns selection of the appropriate transferee district.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held, the Panel
finds that these actions involve common questions of fact and that
. centralization under 28 U.S.C. §1407 will best serve the convenience
; of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of the litigation. These actions share numerous factual
questions relating to the promotion and sale of interests in Storage
Technology Partners (Storage Partners), a research and development
limited partnership. Centralization under Section 1407 is thus
necessary in order to eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent
inconsistent pretrial rulings, and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.
¥ Judges Robert H. Schnacke and Sam C. Pointer, Jr. took no part in
the decision of this matter.
1/ The original motion encompassed thirteen actions. Movants
subsequently added two actions to their motion by amendments.
2/ The cross-motion adds one action not included on the original
motion as amended.

. Case MDL No. 593 Document2 Filed 06/01/15 Page	2 of 3
-2-
Three potential transferee forums--the Northern District of ®California, the District of Colorado and the District of Minnesota--
have been suggested by parties to this litigation. Although we are of )
the view that either the Northern District of California or the
District of Colorado could be described as an appropriate transferee
forum for this litigation, on balance we conclude that the Northern :
District of California is the most preferable, for the following
reasons: 1) Santa Clara, California was the principal place of
business of Storage Partners, and many key witnesses and documents
relating to the Storage Partners research and development project will
likely be found in the Northern District of California; 2) the moving
defendants have offered to make available for discovery in California
their witnesses and documents located in Colorado; and 3) all
defendants, as well as some plaintiffs, favor centralization in the
Northern District of California.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407, the
actions listed on the followlng Schedule A and pending in districts
other than the Northern District of California be, and the same hereby
are, transferred to the Northern District of California and, with the
consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Spencer M. Williams
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions
pending in that district and listed on Schedule A.
FOR THE PANEL:
Andrew A. Caffrey !
Chairman

Case MDL No. 593 Document2 Filed 06/01/15 Page	3 of 3
@® Schedule A
' MDL-593 -- In re Storage Technology Securities Litigation
‘ District of Colorado
Griffin Investments, et al. v. Storage Technolo Corp., et al.,
C.A. No. 84-M-1L30
B&W Co., et al. v. Storage Technolo Corp., et al., C.A. No.
BT-M-150
William H. Lacy, et al. v. Storage Technology Corp., et al., C.A.
Raymond L. Sachs v. Storage Technology Corp., et al.,
C.A. No. - 11
Dave Wolf, Jr., et al. v. Storage Technolo Corp., et al., C.A.
No. 8L4-M-850
Southern District of Florida
Joseph F. Fogarty, Jr., et al. v. Storage Technolo Corp.
et al., C.A. No. 84-0672-CIV-EPS
Middle District of Florida
® JS Partners v. Smith Barney, et al., C.A. No. 84-206-Civ-T-13
District of Minnesota
Russell H. Baumgardner v. Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co., Inc.,
et al., C.A. No. - 2
Franklin N. Groves v. Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co., Inc., et
al., C.A. No. - -2 5
A. Edward Balley v. Storage Technolo Corp., et al., C.A. No.
F=84-2638
Dale Olseth v. Storage Technology Corp., et al., C.A. No. 4-84-383
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
ATABA Partnershi et al. v. Storage Technolo Corp., et al.,
C.A. No. Bi-13185
Northern District of California
Michael Abelson v. STC Computer Research Corp., et al., C.A. No.
-0555-SW
Stuart Abelson v. Storage Technolo Corp., et al., C.A. No.
C-84-1345-SC
Yenching Wu, M.D., et al. v. Storage Technology Corp., et al.,
C.A. No. C=-84-1241-TEH
Crocker National Bank, N.A. v. Storage Technology Corp., et al.,
C.A. No. C-84=1346-MHP