IN RE: Multidistrict Labor Litigation Involving Iowa Beef Packers, Inc. and Amalgamated Meatcutters and Butcher Workmen of North America

Case MDL No. 33 Document 2 Filed 04/29/15 Page 1 of 4
Jo7 7 Jeg /259JUDICIAL PANEL ON SL Co
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION oe ET
MAR 1 8 1970 - a.
THE JUDICIAL PANEL PATRICIA	D. HCWARD
ON CLERK OF THE PANE
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
MULTIDISTRICT LABOR LITIGATION ) : :
INVOLVING IOWA BEEF PACKERS, INC. ) oo
AND AMALGAMATED MEATCUTTERS AND ) DOCKET NO. 33 vo
BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA )
OPINION AND ORDER
BEFORE ALFRED P. MURRAH, CHAIRMAN, AND JOHN MINOR WISDOM, HE NEE
EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON,* WILLIAM H. BECKER, JOSEPH ETT EE
S. LORD, III, AND STANLEY A WEIGEL, JUDGES OF THE PANEL Co oo
PER CURIAM To .
The defendantsi/ in the four actions listed on Schedule A Co
pending in federal courts in New York and New Jersey filed
a motion with the Panel to transfer those actions pending
in other districts to the District of New Jersey for coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1407. : oo
A nearly identical action filed in the Central District of SET
California	was also considered for transfer under § 1407 : oo
on the initiative of the Panel and a plenary hearing was held oo
in New York City on February 27, 1970. CL
* Although Judge Robson did not attend the hearing he has . » }
with the consent of all parties participated in this decision. oo .
1/ Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Coe
International Union, AFL-CIO and affiliated local unions. Ce

Case MDL No. 33 Document2 Filed 04/29/15 Page	2 of 4
® AT
Iowa Beef Packers, Inc., plaintiff in each one of these
actions, strongly opposes transfer although it agrees that
there are questions of fact common to all actions particularly
with regard to the role of the International Union in the alleged
illegal secondary activities carried out by the individual
locals. The plaintiff contends, and we are inclined
to agree, that the dominant questions of fact are those
relating to the secondary activity complained of and as such are
unique to each action.
It appears that the California action can be quickly
eliminated as all parties urge that its transfer to the
® East Coast would not serve the convenience of parties or
witnesses and would inhibit its just and efficient conduct.
The dispute then centers around four actions pending in three
districts, all within the metropolitan New York City area.
As this litigation is relatively small in scope, transfer
under § 1407 would be inappropriate unless it involves
exceptional cases sharing unusually complex questions of
fact. Compare In re Scotch Whiskey Litigation, 299 F.Supp. 543
(JPML 1969) with In re IBM Litigation, 302 F.Supp. 796
(JPML 1969).
[Wlhere, as here, there are a minimal number
of cases involved in the litigation the moving
party bears a strong burden to show that the
common questions of fact are so complex and
that the accompanying common discovery so
time consuming as to overcome the inconven-=
o ience to the party whose action 1s beingtransferred and its witnesses. In re Scoteh
Whiskey Litigation, supra, at page 544.

Case MDL No. 33 Document 2 Filed 04/29/15 Page 3 of 4
® ah
The common questions of fact here involve the International
Union's role in the secondary activity and discovery will
probably be limited to the taking of depositions of several
officers of the International Union and the production of
records at its offices in Chicago. There may also be some
common discovery with regard to damages. These actions are
clearly not exceptional cases sharing unusually complex
common questione of fact and we are not convinced that their
just and efficient conduct will be served by transfer to a single
district under § 1407.2 We do not mean to imply that informal
coordination of pretrial proceedings, especially with regard to
® discovery of common parties, is inappropriate but we are
confident that the three courts, with the cooperation of counsel,
will insure that repetitive depositions and duplicative
discovery are avoided.
THE MOTION FOR TRANSFER IS DENIED
2/ The fact that the International Union favors transfer of
the East Coast actions but opposes transfer of the California
action 1s not without significance.
3/ See generally the Manual for Complex and Multidistrict
C Litigation.

Case MDL No. 33 Document 2 Filed 04/29/15 Page 4 of 4
® DOCKET NO. 33 . SCHEDULE A
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Iowa Beef Packers, Inc. v. Amalgamated Civil Action
Meatcutters & Butcher Workmen of North No. 1353-69
America, et al.
Iowa Beef Packers, Inc. v. Amalgamated Civil Action
Meatcutters & Butcher Workmen of North No. 1539-69
America, et al.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
: Iowa Beef Packers, Inc. v. Amalgamated Civil Action
Meatcutters & Butcher Workmen of North No. 69 C 4916
America, et al.
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Iowa Beef Packers, Inc. v. Amalgamated Civil Action
Meatcutters & Butcher Workmen of North No. 69 C 1406
@ America, et al.
oo CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Iowa Beef Packers, Inc. v. Amalgamated Civil Action
' Meatcutters & Butcher Workmen of North No. 70-98-IH
America, et al.