IN RE: Air Crash Disaster at Juneau, Alaska, on September 4, 1971

Case MDL No. 107 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1 of 6
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL pry SO DAL PA oy FREER
: ON TEL LHS ATRY oo
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION Fee ;
HCY 17 197; Ce
IN RE AIR CRASH DISASTER AT ) PATRZI 1 irons so
JUNEAU, ALASKA ON SEPTEMBER 4, ) DOCKET M60 J:0;7;	4 0 Co1971 : ) Sheil Pais]
OPINION AND ORDER : }
BEFORE ALFRED P. MURRAH, CHAIRMAN, AND JOHN MINOR WISDOM, ER
EDWARD WEINFELD*, EDWIN A. ROBSON*, WILLIAM H. BECKER, EPR -
JOSEPH S. LORD, III, AND STANLEY A. WEIGEL*, JUDGES OF oe Cs
THE PANEL ol beaten
al
PER CURIAM :
One hundred and four passengers and seven crew a E :
members died in the crash of an Alaska Airlines air- N oo oo
craft near Juneau, Alaska in 1971. Six actions arising . Co
from the accident have been filed in the Northern Dis- Co - :
trict of California, one in the District of Alaska and RE CL
one in the Western District of Washington. More than Co CL
30 other actions arising from the accident are pending Te CL
in the state courts of Washington and Alaska. Co
The United States has moved for the transfer of So
all federal actions to the District of Alaska for Co
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant EE Cl
to 28 U.S.C. §1407, but because of the history of this
litigation, we think it more appropriate to transfer them .
to the Northern District of California for such proceedings. Co
* Although Judges Weinfeld, Robson and Weigel were not present :
at the hearing, they have, with the consent of all parties, : EE
participated in this decision. Co

Case MDL No. 107 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 2 of 6
-2-
Qo The six California actions are assigned to Judge
Peirson pail.” Judge Hall held a pretrial conference in
February 1972, after notice to representatives of all
decedents, to consider methods of disposing of all claims
arising from the crash. Counsel for all parties in the
federal actions as well as many state court counsel
attended this conference and a stipulation to expedite
consolidated discovery for all cases was discussed. At
subsequent conferences a Plaintiffs' Discovery Committee
was appointed to represent all state and federal plain-
tiffs and a stipulation concerning the use of consolidated
discovery was approved by the court and later circulated
to all plaintiffs and potential plaintiffs with the
C recommendation of Plaintiffs' Discovery Committee that
it be executed.
The stipulation provides that discovery on the
liability issue will occur in the Northern District of
California or the district designated transferee dis-
trict by the Panel under 28 U.S.C. §1407. Discovery
obtained by this manner may be used by a party to the
stipulation in any forum. Discovery in other. actions
is stayed by agreement and those who do not sign the
1/ Judge Hall has also been assigned to the other
districts in which actions are pending by the Chief
: Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.
®

Case MDL No. 107 Document2 Filed 04/30/15 Page	3 of 6
-3-
9 stipulation cannot get the benefit of the consolidated
discovery effort. This stipulation has been signed by
all defendants except the United States, by all federal
plaintiffs and by a number of state court plaintiffs.
Pursuant to the stipulation, Plaintiffs' Discovery
Committee has completed document discovery from Alaska
Airlines and has begun depositions. Judge Hall has also
heard and granted a petition to perpetuate testimony as
to the United States and the United States is now pro-
ducing documents to the plaintiffs. All of this has
taken place under the supervision of the Northern
District of California court. Discovery in the other
cases has been stayed by the stipulation.
® There is no disagreement among the parties con-
cerning the need for transfer of all federal actions to
a single district and we think transfer is clearly
warranted under 28 U.S.C. §1407 for the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and the just and efficient
conduct of the litigation. In re Tweed-New Haven Air
Disaster, =F. Supp. _ (J.p.M.L. 1972). Under
Judge Hall's guidance the parties have achieved maximum
informal coordination of their actions, but transfer to
a single district will make such coordination more
effective.
®

Case MDL No. 107 Document2 Filed 04/30/15 Page	4 of 6
-4-
9 The only dispute concerns the selection of the
transferee district. The United States requests transfer
to Alaska because the crash occurred there and electronic
equipment and personnel involved in the events surrounding
the crash are there. Every other party to the litigation,
plaintiff and defendant, prefers transfer to the Northern
District of California. In opposing transfer to Alaska,
they note that there are no eyewitnesses to the crash and
that all witnesses likely to be called are the agents and
employees of the defendants and have already submitted to
some examination by the plaintiffs or by the National
Transportation Safety Board outside of Alaska. In support
of the Northern District of California, they refer to the
@® progress made in that district in securing the stipulation
and in commencing consolidated discovery.
Although the fact of Judge Hall's intracircuit
assignment to all districts makes the choice of transferee
district less significant, we think the parties should be
allowed to continue in the district in which they have
accomplished all of their discovery. The considerations
argued by the United States in favor of Alaska have been
effectively rebutted by the other parties and the past
history of the litigation clearly requires that all cases
be transferred to the Northern District of California.
®

Case MDL No. 107 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 5 of 6
-5=
- IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed
on the attached Schedule A be, and the same hereby are,
transferred to the Northern District of California and,
with the consent of that court, are hereby assigned to
the liohorable Peirson Hall for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407.

Case MDL No. 107 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 6 of 6
SCHEDULE A DOCKET NO. 107
{ NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA |
Ali Aunalla, etc. v. Alaska Airlines, Civil Action
et al. No. C-71-2363-PMH
William A. Parsons, etc. v. Alaska Civil Action
Airlines No. C-72-546-PMH
Larry A. Peak, v. Alaska Airlines Civil Action
No. C-71-1918-PMH
Juanita Hartland v. Alaska Air- Civil Action
lines, et al. No. C-71-1730-PMH
Patricia Hartland v. Alasak Air- Civil Action
lines, et al. No. C-71-1729-PMH
Tracy Christine Hartland v. Alaska Civil Action
Airlines, et al. No. C~71-1861-PMH
DISTRICT OF ALASKA
Robert E. Roghberger, Sr., etc. v. Civil Action
Alaska Airlines, Inc., et al. No. J-4-72
o WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTONCheryl Ellen Null v. United States Civil Action
of America No. 390-72C2