IN RE: Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation

_ Case MDL No. 310 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 1 of 20
| BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL niciAL PANEL Oi Cee |
ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION AEE RE
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION FILED
IN RE CORRUGATED CONTAINER ANTITRUST ) DOCKEJ NQ.[9?0 SE
LITIGATION ) Co oo
PATRICIA D. HOARD Co PERI
OPINION AND ORDER CLERK OF THE PANEL
BEFORE JOHN MINOR WISDOM, CHAIRMAN, AND EIWARD WEINFELD,
EDWIN A. ROBSON*, JOSEPH S. LORD, III*, STANLEY A. WEIGEL, ;
ANDREW A. CAFFREY, AND ROY W. HARPER¥*, JUDGES OF THE Pag
PANEL : Wile FRE
PER CURIAM EEE
This litigation presently consists of 37 actions
pending in seven federal districts: seventeen in the
Southern District of Texas; fourteen in the Northern B oe
District of Illinois; two in the Southern District of oo
New York; and one each in the Northern District of :
Texas, the Northern District of california, the Central
District of California and the District of Minnesota. : Lo oo
The complaints in these actions basically allege
that from as early as 1960 until 1975 the defendants and :
various co-conspirators have engaged in a nationwide con- Co
spiracy to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the prices a.
of corrugated containers in violation of Section 1 of the EEE
Sherman Act. With one exception, all the actions were :
filed as purported class actions. While there are some
variations in the descriptions of the classes sought, :
* Judges Robson, Lord and Harper took no part in the
decision of this matter.

’ Ct Case MDL No. 310 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 2 of 20
: ,
@ all are national classes consisting of all, or some
group of, corrugated container purchasers. The complaints
| name a total of 38 defendants, including twenty defendants
that are named in all actions.
The complaints in this litigation generally describe
"corrugated containers" as follows:
Corrugated containers are made from that
category of paperboards referred to as corrugated
board. It is made from light weight paperboard
: suitable for corrugating, principally semi-chemical,
kraft, straw, or mix paper stock. Corrugated con-
tainers are made in a variety of styles according
to the needs of the customer.
In December 1975, a federal grand jury in the Southern
District of Texas began an antitrust investigation of the
o corrugated container industry. No indictments have been
returned, and the grand jury's investigation apparently
is continuing.
This litigation is before the Panel on the motion of
eighteen defendants, including fourteen of the defendants
common to all actions, for transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1407 of the actions pending in districts other than the
Southern District of Texas to that district for coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions
pending there. All responding parties agree on or
recognize the propriety of transfer. The only dispute among
o |

: Case MDL No. 310 Document-2 3Fied 05/04/15 Page	3 of 20
| y
o the parties concerns the transferee forum. Besides theSouthern District of Texas, for all practical purposes, only
the Northern District of Illinois has been suggested as an
2/
appropriate transferee forum.
We find that these actions involve common questions
of fact and that their transfer under Section 1407 to the
" Southern District of Texas will best serve the convenience
of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation.
Fourteen of the 38 defendants in MDL-310 are also
defendants in In re Folding Carton Antitrust Litigation, -
MDL-250, which is presently pending in the Northern
District of Illinois. See In re Folding Carton Antitrust
o Litigation, 415 F. Supp. 384 (J.P.M.L. 1976). The complaints
in that litigation basically describe "folding cartons" as:
1l/ Two defendants urge the Panel to defer selection of a
transferee forum because pretrial proceedings in the actions
in this litigation are in a relatively embryonic stage and
the grand jury investigation in Houston of the corrugated
container industry has not yet been concluded. We see no
reason to grant this request. Transfer at this time will
maximize judicial efficiency and best accomplish the other
purposes of Section 1407.
2/ Plaintiff in one of the New York actions favors
the Southern District of New York as its first choice for
the transferee forum. In the alternative, that plaintiff :
favors the Southern District of Texas. That plaintiff
has presented no arguments in support of the Southern
District of New York, however, and we find that the New
York forum would not be an appropriate transferee district
for this litigation. Plaintiff in the other New York
action originally favored the Southern District of New York
as the transferee forum, but at oral argument that plaintiff
stated that it now favors the Southern District of Texas.
® Transcript at 46-47.	Five defendants state that they are presently unable
to urge selection of a particular district as the transferee
forum. :

) a Case MDL No. 310 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page	4 of 20 |
: - 4 - :
@
| Containers made principally from that category
of paperboards referred to as bending box board. It
is made from virgin and reworked cellulose fibers.
The chief characteristic of bending board is its
ability to be bent or folded without breaking or
serious damage at the crease lines which form the
limits of the sides or ends of the carton.
The similarity between the actions in MDL-310 and the
actions in MDL=-250 is a subject of considerable dispute
among some of the parties in MDL-310.
The parties favoring transfer to the Northern District
of Illinois argue that MDL-310 and MDL~250 may be
closely related, at least in part because mill produced
o - paperboard allegedly is the basic ingredient for both
corrugated ccntainers and folding cartons. These parties also
assert that discovery to date in MDL-250 demonstrates that
costs, prices and production of corrugated containers and
folding cartons are somewhat related, and that there are
common sales and production personnel in both segments of
the paperboard industry. Moreover, these parties point |
out, document depositories in MDL-250 have been established
in Chicago and substantial discovery has been completed in
that litigation. Access to the hundreds of thousands of
documents presently on file in the folding carton document
depositories, many of which relate to economic, accounting
C and marketing data of the fourteen defendants common to
i

: Ce Case MDL No. 310 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page	5 of 20
-5 =
C both MDL-310 and MDL-250, clearly will be of substantial
value to all plaintiffs who have filed corrugated container
: actions, these parties maintain. Thus, these parties
assert that transfer of MDL-310 to the Northern District
of Illinois will best permit coordination between MDL-250
and MDL-310 and best allow plaintiffs to ascertain the extent
of conspiratorial activity in the paperboard industry.
In addition, these parties argue that the Northern
District of Illincis is the most appropriate transferee
forum for MDL-310 because: (1) The headquarters of the
Fibre Box Association, the trade association for the
corrugated container industry and, according to some of
CJ the complaints in this litigation, a central clearinghousefor information used by the defendants and co-conspirators
to effectuate the alleged conspiracy, is located in Chicago;
(2) Twenty-three of the 38 defendants in MDL-310 have
their principal places of business, where relevant wit-
nesses and documents presumably will be found, in Illinois
or the upper Midwest; (3) Many plaintiffs' attorneys in
this litigation, including attorneys for the plaintiffs in
all seventeen Southern District of Texas actions, already
are involved in MDL-250 and could most efficiently make a
single trip.to Chicago in connection with pretrial proceedings
in both litigations; and (4) the Panel has often acknowledged
®

I Case MDL No. 310 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 6 of 20
® tt
that Chicago's central location commends transfer to the oo
Northern District of Illinois when a litigation is nation=-
wide in scope. : :
These parties discount the importance of the pendency
of the grand jury investigation in Houston. They stress
that no indictment has yet been handed down and that the :
Panel has not always considered the pendency of related
Goverrhhent proceedings in a particular district to be the
determinative factor in selecting a transferee forum.
Although either the Southern District of Texas or
the Northern District of Illinois could be described as
C an appropriate transferee forum for MDL-310, on balance weconclude that the Southern District of Texas is preferable.
The moving defendants have represented to the Panel that
approximately 1.5 million documents have been produced to
the grand jury in Houston and that over 100 witnesses have been
called to testify before that grand jury. Transcript at
24. Regardless of whether any indictments are handed down
by the Houston grand jury, plaintiffs in the actions in MDL~-310
in all likelihood will seek to discover the grand jury
materials. Since these materials are under the custody and
control of the Southern District of Texas, transisr to that
®

’ . Case MDL No. 310 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 7 of 20
-7-
® forum will best facilitate any necessary coordination |
| between the Government proceedings and the private actions.
see In re Hawaiian Hotel Room Rate Antitrust Litigation,
F.Supp. ___, _____ (J.P.M.L., filed September 27,
1977) (slip opinion at 4); In re Antracite Coal Anti-
trust Litigation, 436 F. Supp. 402, 403 (J.P.M.L.
1977); In re Folding Carton Antitrust Litigation, :
supra, 415 F. Supp. at 386. Moreover, seventeen
of the 37 actions before us already are pending in the |
Southern District of Texas, see In re Investors Funding
Corporation of New York Securities Litigation, ___ F. Supp.
ev ____ (g.Pp.M.L., filed August	8, 1977) (slip opinion
C at 10), and a majority of the responding parties favor :transfer to that district, see In re Westinghouse Electric
Corp. Uranium Contracts Litigation, 405 F. Supp. 316, 319
(J.P.M.L. 1975).
The record before us leaves unclear the extent of
commonality between MDL-250 and MDL-310. But even viewing
the record in the light most favorable to the advocates of
| transfer to the Northern District of Illinois, we still
find that the just and efficient conduct of MDL-310 can
best be furthered by its transfer to the Southern District
of Texas. We are confident that if any need arises to
coordinate pretrial proceedings in MDL-250 and MDL-310,
C |

: ol Case MDL No. 310 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page	8 of 20
® . | : —_ 8 -— ’ .communication and cooperation among the judges supervising
these litigations, coupled with the cooperation of all
parties and their counsel, will be sufficient to prevent
: any duplicative discovery, eliminate the possibility of
conflicting pretrial rulings, and thereby result in an
overall streamlining of pretrial proceedings in. both }
litigations. See In re Sugar Industry Antitrust Litigation,
427 F. Supp. 1018, 1026-27 (J.P.M.L. 1977).
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 Southern District of Texas be,
o and the same hereby are, transferred to the SouthernDistrict of Texas and, with the consent of that court,
assigned to the Honorable John V. Singleton, Jr., for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the
actions already pending in that district and listed on
Schedule A.
®

oe ~ Case MDL No. 310 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page	9 of 20
SCHEDULE A DOCKET NO. 310
C Civil Action No.	SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
"Adams Extract Co. v. Alton Box Board 77-H-461
Co., et al.
Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of Washington, 77-H-584 :
D. C., Inc., et al. v. Weyerhaeuser Co., :
et al.
Williams Manufacturing Co. and Seneca 77-H~-789
Industries, Inc. v. Alton Box Board Co.,
et al.
West Publishing Co. v. Alton Box Board 77-H-791
Co., et al, :
Valley Plastics, Inc. v. Alton Box 77-H-792
Board Co., et al.
Levee Furniture Co. v. Alton Box 77-H-793
Board Co., et al.
Duranne of California, Inc. d/b/a 77-H-724
* Embassy Giftwares v. Alton Box Board,
et al.
Austine Products Co. v. Alton Box Board 77-H=-782
Co., et al. :
Arcadia Furniture Corp. v. Alton Box Board 77-H=-790
Co. ? et al.
Red Wing Industries, Inc. v. Alton Box 77-H-804
Board Co., et al.
Winona Industries, Inc. v. Alton Box Board 77-H-814 |
Co. ’ et al. . . ’
Pepco Industries, Inc. v. Alton Box Board 77-H-813
Co., et al.
After Six, Inc., Bert Paley, Ltd. and 77-H-805
Commonwealth Toy & Novelty Co, Inc. Vv.
Alton Box Board Co., et al.
Grist Mill Co., v. Alton Box Board Co., 77-H-849
et al.

: - Case MDL No. 310 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 10 of 20
SCHEDULE A (continued) DOCKET NO. 310
o Civil Action No. :	SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (cont.)
Valley Avocado Sales, Inc. v. Alton - 77-H-869
Box Board Co., et.al.
Universal Cooperatives, Inc. v. Alton 77-H-885
Box Board Co., et al. : .
Shell-Tex Fisheries, Ltd. v. Alton Box 77-H~876
Board Co., et al.
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Douglas Furniture Corp. v. Container 77-C=799
Corp. of America, et al.
Wittek Golf supply Co., Inc. v. Alton 77-C-976
Box Board, et al.
Amberley Greeting Card Co., et al. v. 77-C-1106
Alton Box Board, et al.
Westbrae Natural Foods, Inc. v. Alton 77-C-1107
C Box Board, et al.	Coordinated Industries, Inc. v. Alton 77-C-1108
Box Board, et al.
Furniture Plastics, Inc. v. Alton Box 77-C-1149
Board, et al.
Carron Manufacturing Co. v. Williamette 77-C-1063
Inc., et al.
Carnavale Bag Co., Inc. v. Alton Box 77-C-1198
Board, et al.
Durawood Industries, Inc. v. Alton Box 77-C-1521
Board Co., et al.
Sambo 's Restaurants, Inc. v. Alton Box 77-C-1611
: Board Co., et al.
Bodines, Inc. v. Alton Box Board Co., 77-C-1965
et al.
Snyder-Craft, Co., Inc. v. Alton Box 77=-C-1905
Board Co., et al.
Veneer Distributors, Inc. v. Alton Box 77-C~-2435
Board Co., et al.

or Case MDL No. 310 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 11 of 20
C SCHEDULE A (continued) DOCKET NO. 310	Civil Action No.
: NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS (cont.)
Salsburg Meats, Inc. v. Alton Box Board 77-C=2433
Co., et al.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Covington Fabrics Corp. v. Alton Box 77 Civ 2881
Board Co., et al.
The Beaumont Co. v. Alton Box Board Co., 77 Civ 2926
et al. :
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Andre-Boudin Bakeries, Inc. v. Alton Box C77-1283-WTS
Board Co., et al.
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
® Westside Paper Co. v. Alton Box Board CV77-2523-WMBCo., et al.
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Artcraft Press, Inc. v. Alton Box Board 4~77-Civ-195
Co., et al.
NORTHERN DISTRICT QF TEXAS
United Farmers Cooperative, Inc., et al. CA-2-77-73
v. International Paper Co.,; et al.

oi tetetre—— pe —— iatTET shed SE = =r H
ee Case MDL No. 310 Document 2 Filed 05/0485 Page 1Egf 20 |
| -5 E gg
[= = =e :
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL No =E LT FEN
ON FF NN 58> Poo J	Fr — [=] = :
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION TS = 5&5 Do
=F	= 29 EE
IN RE CORRUGATED CONTAINER ANTITRUST ) DOCKET N@ZZ310 = ooo
LITIGATION ) = Gf- Co
| soFranklin Container Corp., et al. v. International 23/78Paper Co., et al., E. D. Pennsylvania, C.A. No. 77-3204 CT
OPINION AND ORDER .
BEFORE JOHN MINOR WISDOM, CHAIRMAN, AND EDWARD WEINFELD, EE
EDWIN A. ROBSOM, JOSEPH S. LORD, III*, STANLEY A. WEIGEL, a
ANDREW A. CAFFREY*, AND ROY W. HARPER*, JUDGES OF THE PANEL. SI oo
PER CURIAM
‘The Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407, previously Po E
transferred several actions in this litigation to the So a
Southern District of Texas and, with the consent of that .
court, assigned them to the Honorable John V. Singleton, Jr., :
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with = BE
the actions pending there. In re Corrugated Container Anti- Co
trust Litigation, 441 F. Supp. 921 (J.P.M.L. 1977). In so : oo
doing, the Panel described the actions in this litigation as
follows: CL Le
The complaints in these actions basically allege
that from as early as 1960 until 1975 the defendants
and various co-conspirators have engaged in a nation-
wide conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize
the prices of corrugated containers in violation of
*/ Judges Lord, Caffrey and Harper took no part in the
decision of this matter.

TT le . i
Case MDL No. 310 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 13 of 20- cod
. : -2- . oo
Section 1 of the Sherman Act. With one exception, all |
the actions were filed as purported class actions. oo i.
. while there are some variations in the descriptions of a
) | the classes sought, all are national classes consisting Ce LT
| of all, or some group of, corrugated container purchasers. REE :The complaints name a total of 38 defendants, including
o twenty defendants that are named in all actions. oo
Id. at 922.
The complaint in the above-captioned action (Franklin) oo EERE
is brought as a purported class action on behalf of all Ea. SUSE
1/ -
independent corrugated box manufacturers located in the Co
United States that, during the period from January 1970 until
2/ |late 1977, purchased Kraft liner board manufactured by one
or more of the defendants and that sold corrugated boxes in CT ~
: competition with one or more of the defendants. Co
Plaintiffs in Franklin name as defendants fourteen Co
companies. Each of these fourteen defendants is also a :
defendant in Corrugated Container; ten of them are defendants .
in all the actions in Corrugated Container. :
l/ The term "independent corrugated box manufacturer" is
defined in the Franklin complaint as a "company which owns -
or controls one or more corrugated box plants and which is LL Co
not a manufacturer of Kraft liner board.” Co
2/ Kraft liner board is a raw material used in the manufacture
of corrugated containers. Kraft liner board is defined in
the Franklin complaint as a "type of paper possessing superior
characteristics of bursting and tensile strength and resistance
to adverse weather conditions which make it suitable for the : :
manufacture of corrugated board." Corrugated board allegedly
consists of two or more sheets of Kraft liner board that
have been cemented to a corrugating medium.

“ | Case MDL No. 310 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 14 of 20
-3-
® The complaint in Franklin alleges that the defendants,
commencing in or about 1945 and continuing until
late 1977, conspired to monopolize the manufacture,
distribution, sale and shipment of corrugated boxes in the
United States in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
~The complaint further alleges that defendants conspired
to restrain trade unreasonably in the manufacture, distribution, a
sale and shipment of Kraft liner board and corrugated boxes
in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. This conspira-
torial activity allegedly included, inter alia, the following
acts: (1) Acguiring the ownership of independent corrugated :
box manufacturers and/or constructing corrugated box plants,
® thus becoming the competitors of the independent manufacturerswhile remaining the principal source of supply of Kraft
liner board for the independent manufacturers; (2) Increasing the
prices of Kraft liner board sold to independent manufacturers,
while at the same time selling or transferring Kraft liner
board to defendants' own corrugated box manufacturing plants
at prices significantly lower than the prices charged to
plaintiffs; (3) Fixing the prices of corrugated boxes at
artificially low levels; (4) Participating in certain reci-
procal arrangements with co-defendants, including the exchange
of Kraft liner board throughout the United States without
regard to differences in cost of production and without
charge for freight, handling or other necessary costs; and
®

Case MDL No. 310 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 15 of 20 : E
—lm
(5) Furnishing certain trade publications with incomplete and ®
misleading statistics relating to the production, prices
and inventory of Kraft liner board and corrugated boxes in
order to distort certain statistics disseminated by those
publications, thus enabling defendants to fix the prices
charged for Kraft liner board which was sold to the independent
manufacturers. The complaint in Franklin charges that defendants' ~
conduct has enabled them to increase their share of the market
in the manufacture, distribution and sale of corrugated boxes
in the United States to approximately 80 percent.
Because Franklin appeared to share questions of fact
with the actions previously transferred to the Southern District
of Texas, the Panel issued an order conditionally transferring C
Franklin to that district for inclusion in the Section 1407
proceedings pending there. The named plaintiffs in Franklin,
nine defendants in that action and Plaintiffs' Steering
Committee in Corrugated Container have moved the Panel to
vacate the conditional transfer order. Four defendants in
Franklin, as well as a Corrugated Container defendant that
is a member of the purported plaintiffs' class in Franklin, |
support transfer of Franklin to the Southern District of
Texas.
We find that Franklin shares questions of fact with the
actions previously transferred to the Southern District of
Texas and that transfer of Franklin to that district under ®

ay - Case MDL No. 310 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 16 of 20
. .
® Section 1407 will best serve the convenience of the parties
and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of.
this litigation.
The parties that oppose Section 1407 transfer of
Franklin argue that Franklin and the actions in Corrugated
Container involve different economic and conspiratorial }
issues. These parties point out that the complaints in the
actions in Corrugated Container allege a general nationwide con-
, spiracy to fix the price of corrugated containers at artificially
high levels. In contrast, these parties assert, the complaint
in Franklin alleges that defendants in that action fixed
the price at which they sell corrugated boxes at artificially
® low levels in comparison to the price that could feasibly be
charged by independent manufacturers. These parties further
maintain that the alleged price fixing involved in Franklin
occurred in limited geographic areas and for limited periods,
and was merely one aspect of the predatory course of conduct
allegedly carried out by defendants against selectively
targeted independents in order to further defendants' conspiracy
to monopolize trade in corrugated boxes. These parties thus
argue that Franklin is basically a Sherman Act Section 2
monopolization case and that the bulk of the discovery necessary
in Franklin will be significantly different than that involved
in Corrugated Container.
®

Case MDL No. 310 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 17 of 20 i ~
—6—
Opponents to transfer also assert that because some C
~ companies are both defendants in Corrugated Container and
members of the purported class in Franklin, those companies
will have interests antagonistic to the interests of
the other plaintiffs and defendants in Corrugated Container,
and therefore Franklin and Corrugated Container can most
fairly and efficiently be conducted by leaving them separate.
Opponents to transfer point out that the pendency in
Houston of a grand jury investigation into possible antitrust
violations in the corrugated container industry was an
important factor in the Panel's decision to transfer the
actions in Corrugated Container to the Southern District of
3/
Texas. The Government proceedings pending in Houston,
however, are not relevant to the subject matter involved in ®
Franklin, these parties maintain. To the extent that the
pendency of Government proceedings is relevant, these parties
argue, a federal grand jury currently sitting in Philadelphia
is investigating, inter alia, possible antitrust violations
concerning Kraft liner board. These parties assert that
information concerning market structure, conduct, performance
and other economic data and analyses concerning the Kraft liner
3/ In late January 1978, the Houston grand jury indicted
fourteen paper manufacturers and 26 of their present or former
officers and employees for allegedly fixing the price of
. corrugated containers and sheets sold east of the Rocky Mountains
for the past eighteen years. Nine corporations and nine
individuals were charged with felony antitrust violations,
and the remaining five corporations and seventeen individuals wer)charged with misdemeanor antitrust violations. These criminal
proceedings have been assigned to Judge Singleton.

“ - Case MDL No. 310 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 18 of 20
—-7-
@® board industry and the manufacturing of corrugated boxes
would much more likely emanate from the Philadelphia
grand jury investigation than from the Houston proceedings.
Therefore, opponents to transfer conclude that transfer
of Franklin to the Southern District of Texas would merely
introduce broad new issues and pretrial problems into the 5
Section 1407 proceedings pending there without any
commensurate benefit to the parties in those proceedings
, or in Franklin. Should there be any need to coordinate
discovery or other pretrial proceedings in Franklin and
the actions in Corrugated Container, these parties maintain
that the district courts handling these actions could and
® would effectively provide for such coordination.
We find these arguments unpersuasive. While we
recognize that Franklin and the actions in the transferee
district involve some disparate factual issues and legal
theories, the record before us amply demonstrates that Franklin
and the actions in Corrugated Container share numerous significant
questions of fact concerning whether there was price fixing
in the corrugated container industry, and if so, when, where,
how, by whom and was it at artificially high or low levels.
We are convinced that the parties in Franklin and Corrugated
Container will have to depose many of the same witnesses,
examine many of the same documents, and make many similar
pretrial motions in order eventually to prove -- or disprove --
® both sets of conspiracy allegations. Thus, as we stated in

Case MDL No. 310 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 19 of 20 : ~
_g-
In re Beef Industry Antitrust Litigation, 432 F. Supp. 211, ®
213 (J.P.M.L. 1977), which involved issues very similar to
those now before us, transfer of Franklin
is necessary in order to prevent duplicative discovery,
eliminate any possibility of conflicting pretrial rulings
and conserve time and effort for the parties, the
witnesses and the judiciary. Any antagonistic interests
among the parties in the various actions may be accommo-
dated by the transferee judge in designing the pretrial -
program. See [In re Sugar Industry Antitrust Litigation,
437 F. Supp. 1204, 1206-08 (J.P.M.L. 1977);] In re Delta
Airlines Crash at Boston Massachusetts, 395 F. Supp. 1405,
1407 (g.P.M.L. 1975); In re Franklin National Bank
Securities Litigation, 393 F. Supp. 1093, 1095 (J.P.M.L.
‘ 1975). And discovery on any issues unique to [Franklin]
may be scheduled by the transferee judge to proceed in
a separate discovery schedule concurrently with discovery
on common issues. See In re Republic National-Realty
Equities Securities Litigation, 382 F. Supp. 1403, 1405-06
(J.P.M.L. 1974).
We agree with the parties that argue that documents ®
relevant to Franklin may be gathered	ky the federal grand
jury in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which is investi-
gating possible antitrust violations in the manufacture,
distribution and sale of paper and paper products. See In re
Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation, F. Supp. ,
(J.P.M.L., filed March 3, 1978) (slip opinion at 2, 5-6).
Under the particular circumstances of the matter now before
us, however, where over 1.5 million documents directly related
to the corrugated container industry were produced to the
&/
Houston grand jury, and where each of the defendants in
4/ In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation, supra,
441 F. Supp. at 924. )

Ss. - Case MDL No. 310 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 20 of 20
® Pranklin is already involved as a defendant in Corrugated
Container, inclusion of Franklin in Corrugated Container will
clearly promote the just and efficient resolution of both
Franklin and the actions already in the transferee district.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1407, the action captioned Franklin Container Corp., et al.
v. International Paper Co., et al., E.D. Pennsylvania, ”
C. A. No. 77-3204, be, and the same hereby is, transferred
to the Southern District of Texas and, with the consent of
that court, assigned to the Honorable John V. Singleton, Jr.,
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with
the actions already pending there in MDL-310.
®
®