IN RE: Storage Technology Corporation Securities Litigation

. _. : Case MDL No. 630 Document2 Filed 06/01/15 Page	1 of 4
JUDE	AL PANG BK
: RULTIZIETRICT LITIGATIGN
C DOCKET NO. 630 FLED
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITTGRTAONISE
ALEC	BD, Bland)
IN RE STORAGE TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIEAEEOHE 0 ined
. TRANSFER ORDER#
‘ This litigation presently consists of fifteen actions pending in
two federal districts as follows: twelve actions in the District of
Colorado and three actions in the Northern District of California.
Before the Panel 1s a motion by twelve of the seventeen defendants in
this litigation to centralize, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407, the
actions in this litigation in the District of Colorado for coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Also before the Panel is a
cross-motion by plaintiffs in the three California actions to
centralize, pursuant to Section 1407, the actions in this litigation
in the Northern District of California for inclusion in the
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings already occurring
there before Judge Spencer M. Williams in another litigation =--
MDL-593, In re Storage Technology Securities Litigation. In addition
to the moving defendants, plaintiffs in eleven Colorado actions and
defendant Price Waterhouse favor transfer to the District of Colorado.
In addition to the cross-moving plaintiffs, ‘plaintiff in one Colorado
action favors transfer to the Northern District of California. No
@ party has opposed centralization.N On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held, the Panel
= finds that these fifteen actions involve common questions of fact and
that centralization under 28 U.S.C. §1407 in the District of Colorado
willl best serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and
promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. The actions
share numerous factual questions relating to alleged violations of
various securities laws in connection with the sale of Storage
Technology Corporation (STC) securities. Centralization of these
actions under Section 1407 is therefore necessary in order to avoid
duplication of discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, and
conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the
Judiciary.
We conclude that the District of Colorado 1s the most appropriate
transferee forum for this litigation because 1) twelve of the fifteen
actions now before the Panel are already pending there; 2) STC has its
principal place of business in Colorado and many of its witnesses and
documents will be found in that state; and 3) related bankruptcy
proceedings involving STC are pending in the District of Colorado. In
response to cross-movants' request that the actions in this litigation
be centralized in the Northern District of California with the actions
in MDL-593, we note that Judge Williams, the MDL-593 transferee judge,
@. Judge Sam C. Pointer, Jr. took no part in the decision of thismatter.

Case MDL No. 630- Document 2 Filed 06/01/15 Page 2 of 4 “ .
] -2-
s ruled that the MDL-593 actions and the three California actions
presently before the Panel in this litigation are unrelated within the
meaning of the local court rules in the Northern District of
California. -
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407, the
actions listed on the attached Schedule A and pending in the Northern
District	of California be, and the same hereby are, transferred to the
District of Colorado and, with the consent of that court, assigned to
the Honorable Richard P. Matsch 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

===-————————T356	MDL No. 630 Document2 Filed 06/01/15 Page	3 of 4 |
Schedule A -
MDL-630 =-- In re Storage Technology Corporation Securities Litigation
- Northern District of California
Lo Frederick Rand v. Storage Technology Corp., C.A. No. CB4-6344-TPV
Frederick Rand Vv. Jesse l. Aweida, C.A. No. C84-TO30-EEL
Florence Levitt v. Jesse 1. Aweida, C.A. No. C84-TOOL-MHP
District of Colorado
James A. Spear v. Storage Technolo Corp., et al., C.A. No.
84-2029
Harry Jacobs v. Storage Technology Corp., et al., C.A. No. 84-2058
Norman Kamerman v. Jesse I. Aweida, et al., C.A. No. B4-JM-1995
Johnathan E. Scharff v. Storage Technolo Corp., et al., C.A. No.
B4-2008
Joseph H. Levit v. Storage Technolo Corp., et al., C.A. No.
B4-JM-1981
John MacDonald, et al. Vv. Storage Technology Corp., et al., C.A.
No. - 0 . Lor Co
Bernard Orlofsky v. Storage Technolo Corp., et al., C.A. No.
B4-JM-2069
C Sidney Sobel v. Jesse I. Aweida, et al., C.A. No. 84-2125. Alexander Katechls v. Jesse 1. Aweida, et al., C.A. No. 84-2186= Hilda Stoller v. Jesse 1. Awelda, et al., C.A. No. 84-JM-2366
Samuel Sinay Vv. Jesse 1. Aweida, et al., C.A. No. B4-JM-2353
James H. Scoville, et al. v. Jesse 1. Awelda, et al., C.A. No.
BE-JM-2303

Case MDL No. 630 Document2 Filed 06/01/15 Page	4 of 4
_guiniikl #ANCL GN
HEL TIRISTRICT LIGATION
fal
@ SEP -5 1930
PATRICIA D. HD GARD
CLERK CF THE PANEL
DOCKET NO. 630
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION |
IN RE STORAGE TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION
ORDER REASSIGNING LITIGATION
Inasmuch as the actions involved in the above-referenced
litigation have been reassigned in the District of Colorado to the
Honorable Sherman G. Finesilver,
IT IS ORDERED that the above-captioned litigation be, and the same
hereby is, REASSIGNED to the Honorable Sherman G. Finesilver for the
remainder of the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407.
FOR THE ya
® 4 John F. %Chairman