IN RE: Lower Lake Erie Iron Ore Litigation

| ~ Case MDL No. 587 Document2 Filed 06/01/15 Page	1 of 3 CUTIE FANT oy
= VULTTIZTRICT UTIs AT aNFILED
APR 17 1984
® DOCKET NO. 587 PATRICIA	DL iow avsCLERK OF THE pact
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE LOWER LAKE ERIE ANTITRUST LITIGATION
TRANSFER ORDER#*
Tnis litigation presently consists of nine actions pending in
three districts as follows: five actions in the Northern District of
Ohio, three actions in the District of the Distrigt of Columbia, andone action in the Southern District of New York.— Before the Panel
1s a motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407, brought by defendants Penn
Central Corporation and Consolidated Rail Corporation to centralize
the actions for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in a
single forum. Movants do not suggest a specific transferee forum,
except to the extent that they urge selection of one in the
nortneastern United States.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held, the Panel
finds that transfer of seven of the nine actions to the Eastern Dis-
trict of Pennsylvania will best serve the convenience of the parties
and witnesses and promote the Just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. All the actions in this docket involve allegations that,
for the period from 1956 to approximately 1980, defendant railroads
C conspired in violation of the antitrust laws, inter alia, to monopo-lize the Lake Erie iron ore trade and to fix the terms, conditions
and rates of docking and rail transportation services in that trade.
Centralization of seven 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 tne Judiciary. Two of the actions,
nowever, Pinney Dock & Transport Co. v. The Penn Central Cor ., et
al., N.D. Onio, C.A. No. C80-1733 (Pinney), and Litton Industries,
Inc. v. Penn Central Corp., et al., N.D. Ohio, C.A. No. CB8I=37?
(Litton), have been pending for over three years, are much further
advanced vis-a-vis the other actions in this docket, and have
important motions under submission. Under tnese circumstances we are
not persuaded that inclusion of Pinney and Litton in centralized
pretrial proceedings under Section 1407 would serve the convenience
of the parties and witnesses and promote the Just and efficient
conduct of the litigation.
¥ Judges Sam C. Pointer, Jr., and Milton Pollack recused themselves
and took no part in the decision of this matter.
C 1/ Av tne request of the Honorable William K. Thomas, our decisionregarding transfer under Section 1407 of a tenth action, Tauro
Brothers Trucking Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., Inc., et al.,	-D. Onio, C.A. No. C83- -Y, 1s deferred until further notice.

- Case MDL No. 587 Document2 Filed 06/01/15 Page	2 of 3 *. .
—2~
Centralization in the Northern District of Ohio of the cenatnindf)actions in this docket might impede the expeditious resolution of
Pinney and Litton. We have therefore determined to centralize the
actions in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. We note that:
1) the Honorable John P. Fullam, to whom the actions are being
assigned, presided over the reorganization of the Penn Central Trans-
portation Corp. and is therefore very familiar with the workings of
the railroad industry; 2) while not previously assigned any of the
actions in this docket, Judge Fullam has nevertheless gained
familiarity with many of the issues in the actions as a result of his
consideration of petitions by plaintiffs in some of the actions for
leave to pursue antitrust claims against Penn Central Corp.; 3) the
Eastern District of Pennsylvana is centrally located vis-a-vis the
districts where actions are currently pending in this docket; and
4) a number of the major parties are neadquartered in Pennsylvania
and therefore relevant witnesses and records are likely to be found	there.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that transfer pursvant to 28 U.S.C. §1407
of the actions entitled Pinnev Dock & Transport Co. v. The Penn
Central Corp., et al., N.D. Ohio, C.A. No. CB0-1733; and Litton
Industries, Inc. v. Penn Central Corp., et al., N.D. Ohio, C.A. No.
. C61-372, be, and tne same hereby is, denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407, the
remaining actions listed on the attached Schedule A be, and the sane
~ hereby are, transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and,
with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable John P.
Fullam for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
FOR THE PANEL
Andrew A. Caffrey 7
Chairman

co. Case MDL No. 587 Document2 Filed 06/01/15 Page	3 of 3
® SCHEDULE AMDL-587 ~- IN RE LOWER LAKE ERIE IRON ORE ANTITRUST LITIGATION
Northern District of Ohio .
Wills Trucking, Inc., et al. v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.,
C.A. C 82-759
R. Weise Trucking, Inc., et al. v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.,Inc., et al., C.A. No. CB2-381
C.D. Ambrosia Trucking Co., Inc. v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.,Inc., et al., C.A. No. CB84-39
Pinney Dock & ransport Co. v. The Penn Centeral Corp., et al.,	C.A. No. C80-1733
Litton Industries, Inc., et al. v. Penn Central Corp., et al.,
C.A. No. CB1-372
District of the District of Columbia
Jones & Laughlin Steel Inc. v. The Penn Central Corporation, et al.,
C C.A. No. 83-1688 EE
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp. v. The Penn Central Corp., et al.,C.A. No. 83-3317
National Steel corp, v. The Penn Central Corp., et al.,	C.A. No. 83-332
Southern District of New York	moveJisirict	ol New York
Republic Steel Corp. v. The Penn Central Corp., et al.,
C.A. No. 53 Civ. 0413 (LBS)