IN RE: Folding Carton Antitrust Litigation

— . Case MDL No. 250 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15\ Rage 4f g a	TSC Cl
Hime ) ~
MULT ERE EL On
® FICE
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL
| oN KRY	25 1976
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION PAT ‘
| | CLERK GE Tiowary	ANELIN RE FOLDING CARTON ) . 250
ANTITRUST LITIGATION j DOCKET NO. 25
OPINION AND ORDER
BEFORE JOHN MINOR WISDOM, CHAIRMAN, AND EDWARD WEINFELD,
EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER *, JOSEPH S. LORD, IIT *,
STANLEY A. WEIGEL, AND ANDREW A, CAFFREY *, JUDGES OF
THE PANEL
PER CURIAM
This litigation was spawned by the indictment
of 22 corporations and approximately 50 of their officers
and employees for conspiring to fix prices of paperboard
@ folding cartons. The indictment and a companion Government
civil enforcement action, naming only the 22 corporations
as defendants, were filed on February 18, 1976 in the North-
ern District of Illinois.
Shortly thereafter, 23 private actions were filed
in six federal districts: fourteen in the Northern District
of Illinois, three in the Southern District of New York,
two each in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the
District of Minnesota, and one each in the Southern District
of Texas and the Northern District of California.
* Judges Becker, Lord and Caffrey were unable
to attend the Panel hearing and, therefore,
did not participate in the consideration or
® decision of this matter.

Case MDL No. 250 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 2 of 9 . .
a. ®
With one exception, each of the private actions
was filed as a purported class action on behalf of various
purchasers of folding cartons. While there are many varia-
tions in the descriptions of the classes that plaintiffs
seek to represent, most are nationwide classes of all or
some group of folding carton purchasers. The 22 corporate
defendants named in the Government actions are named as
defendants in all or most of the private actions. No other
defendants are involved.
The complaints in the private actions track the
Government's allegations and basically allege that since
at least as early as 1960 the defendants and various named ®and unnamed co-conspirators have conspired, in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, to fix, raise, maintain and
stabilize the prices of folding cartons. Two of the private
actions also include allegations of attempted monopolization
under Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
This litigation is before the Panel on the motion
of thirteen defendants for transfer of 22 of the private
actions to the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1/
§1407. All responding parties, except Accurate Metal Weather-
The remaining private action, Adams Extract Company,
Inc., etc. v. Alton Box Board Company, et al., N.D.
I1ll., Civil Action No. 76Cl535, was filed on the day
of the Panel hearing. Prior to the hearing, the plaintiff
in this action submitted a response to the Panel support-
ing the motion and, since all the defendants in this actioll
are already before the Panel, it is included in the order
we are herewith entering under Section 1407.

- - Case MDL No. 250 Document2 Filed 05/01/15 Page	3 of 9
® or
strip Co., Inc., plaintiff in one of the New York actions,
agree on the propriety of transfer to the Northern District of
Illinois, although defendant International Paper Co. requests
that transfer be for the limited purpose of resolving the
class action issue.
We find that the private actions involve common
questions of fact and that their transfer under Section 1407
to the Northern District of Illinois will best serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the
just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
eo The sole opponent to transfer does not contest
) the realities that its purported class action shares
common questions of fact with the other private actions
and is among those that presents the possibility of con-
flicting class determinations. Nevertheless, plaintiff
opposes transfer because it fears that Section 1407 pro-
ceedings will delay its action.
This argument is without merit. As is often the
case in multidistrict antitrust litigation, the private
actions raise common factual issues that necessitate transfer
in crder to prevent duplication of discovery and streamline
the rest of the pretrial proceedings as well. See, e.qg.,
In re Plywood Antitrust Litigation, 376 F. Supp. 1405
®

Case MDL No. 250 Document2 Filed 05/01/15 Page	4 of 9 : .
a ®
(J.P.M.L. 1974). An especially important factor requiring
Section 1407 treatment is the need for centralization and
consistency concerning the class action issues. See In re
Sugar Industry Antitrust Litigation, 395 F. Supp. 1271, 1273
(J.P.M.L. 1975). And, of course, the extent of coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings is a matter solely within
the discretion of the transferee judge. In re Equity Fund-
ing Corporation of America Securities Litigation, 375 F. Supp.
1378, 1384 (J.P.M.L. 1974).
The Northern District of Illinois is clearly
the most appropriate transferee forum for this litigation.
Fourteen of the 23 private actions before us are already ®pending there. Transfer to that district will best facili-
tate the coordination that will no doubt be necessary between
the private actions and the seminal Government criminal
and civil actions which are pending in Illinois. See In re
Sugar Industry Antitrust Litigation, 395 F. Supp. 1271,
| 1274 (J.P.M.L. 1975); In re Toilet Seat Antitrust Litigation,
387 F. Supp. 1342, 1344 (J.P.M.L. 1975); In re West Coast
Bakery Flour Antitrust Litigation, 368 F. Supp. 808, 809
(FJ.P.M.L. 1974). And the same is true concerning the
probable need of the parties for coordination with the
Government concerning the grand jury documents that led
to the indictment. Id. Moreover, Chicago's central
location is another reason commending transfer to the ®

. - Case MDL No. 250 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 5 of 9
® Cs
Northern District of Illinois inasmuch as the present
litigation is nationwide. See In re Government Auto Fleet
Sales Antitrust Litigation, 328 F. Supp. 218, 220
(J.P.M.L. 1971).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed
on the following Schedule A and pending in districts other
than the Northern District of Illinois be, and the same
hereby are, transferred to that district and, with the
consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Hubert
LIL. Will for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceed-
ings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407 with the actions listed
@® on Schedule A and pending there.
®

‘ y Case MDL No. 250 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 6 of 9
"» SCHEDULE	2 DOCKET NO. 250
NORTHERN ‘DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Adams Extract Company, Inc., etc. v. Civil Action
Alton Box Board Company, et al. No. 76Cl535
Thompson International, Inc. Vv. Civil Action
Alton Box Board Co., et al. No. 76C934
Castcraft Industries, Inc., etc. v. Civil Action
Alton Box Board Co., et al. No. 76C983
Service Bindery Co., Inc. v. Alton Civil Action
Box Board Co., et al. No. 76Cl019
Charming Shoppes of Delaware, Inc., Civil Action
et al. v. Alton Box Board Co., et al. No. 76C1026
01d world Baking Co. v. American Can Civil Action
Co., et al. No. 76C1062
Hillman's Inc., etc. v. Alton Box Civil Action
Board Co., et al. No. 76C624
9o G. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. V. Civil ActionAlton Box Board Co., et al. No. 76C644
Grist Mill Co., etc. v. Alton Box Civil Action
Board Co., et al. No. 76C649
Bodines, Inc., etc. v. St. Regis Civil Action
Paper Co., et al. No. 76C656
Corey Brothers Bakery, etc. wv. Civil Action
Alton Box Board Co., et al. No. 76C683
Community Shops, Inc., et al. v. Civil Action
Alton Box Board Co., et al. No. 76C820
Bear Stewart Corp., etc. v. Civil Action
Alton Box Board Co., et al. No. 76C863
Florida Fruit Juices, Inc., etc. v. Civil Action
Alton Box Board Co., et al. No. 76C878

Case MDL No. 250 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 7 of 9 * =
SCHEDULE A DOCKET NO. 250 ®
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Dothan Manufacturing Co. v. Civil Action
Alton Box Board Co., et al. No. 76 Civ 969
Accurate Metal Weatherstrip Co., Civil Action
Inc. v. Alton Box Board Co., et al. No. 76 Civ 882 :
Sero Shirt Co., et al. v. Alton Civil Action
Box Board Co., et al. No. 76 Civ 1325
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Queen Cutlery Co., etc. v. Alton Civil Action
Box Board Co., et al. No. 76-656
Bond Baking Co. v. Alton Box Board Civil Action
Co., et al. No. 76C 752
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Blue Waters Investment Co. v. Civil Action
Alton Box Board Co., et al. No. Civ-4-76-117 o
Surrey, Inc. v. Alton Box Board Civil Action
Co., et al. No. Civ-4-76-118
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Page Boy, Inc. v. Alton Box Board Civil Action
Co., et al. No. 76-H-304
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Falstaff Brewing Corp., etc. v. Civil Action
Alton Box Board Co., et al. No. C76-372-RHS

Case MDL No. 250 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 8 of 9
: Jur TnEL A - :
Co . DOCKET NO. .250 - HLT ON ERATE CT
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION 1077	rro=3 dois : . -
: . P . }
In re Folding Carton Antitrust Litigation tae 2/3/77
© order Denying Oral Argument CLEAR ET Sims SI
The Panel previously transferred all actions in this
litigation to the Northern District of Illinois and, with
the consent of that court, assigned them to the Honorable
Hubert L. Will for coordinated cr consolidated pretrial SEE
proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407. In re Folding LL -
Carton Antitrust Litigation, 415 F. Supp. 384 (J.P.M.L. Son
1976). On October 6, 1976, the Panel entered the following :
order: o
It is hereby ordered that all previous
orders of the Panel transferring actions in this
litigation to the Northern District of Illinois
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial pro-
‘ceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407 be amended
to assign these actions to Judge Edwin A. Robson
. along with the previously-assigned Judge Hubert IL.
Will. Each transferee judge shall have total
jurisdiction over the coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings in this litigation and each
judge may act individually and/or jointly with
: respect to those proceedings. :
On December 27, 1976, F.N. Burt Company, one of the EEdefendants in this litigation, moved the Panel for an order
designating Judge Robson as a judge for settlement purposes
only. On January 11, 1977, four other defendants joined
in this motion. F.N. Burt Company has requested that it
be granted an opportunity to present oral argument in
support of its motion.
The Panel having fully considered F.N. Burt Company's
request for oral argument on this matter,
IT IS ORDERED that the request for oral argument be,
and the same hereby is, DENIED. See Rule 13(b), R.P.J.P.
M.L., 65 F.R.D. 253, 263 (1975). Once all briefs have
been filed, this matter shall be deemed submitted and
shall be considered and determined upon the basis of the :
papers filed. Id. : ;
FOR THE PANEL:
qn—— . . |
< 2 aar isle |
John Minor Wisdom |Chairman i

Case MDL No. 250 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 9 of 9.
pL EE EE
DOCKET NO. 250 SR SH -
IEEE Ve ’ 7d ’
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITaGA®IoNpF-! BV
FO ER (10
I RE FOLDING CARTON ANTITRUST LITIGATION (OFA A oo
: ORDER* i :
| | | 3177!It appearing that five defendants in the above-captioned ;
litigation have either moved or joined in a moticn for the So
Panel to enter an order designating the Honorable Edwin A. FETE
Robson as a transferee judge for settlement purposes only, o
and the Panel having fully considered this motion on the
1/ :
basis of the papers filed |,
IT IS ORDERED that defendants' motion be, and the same
hereby is, DENIED.
: FOR THE PANEL:
0 Monn Wisls	™m AHS. AVIS Tre
John Minor Wisdom :
Chairman
* Judges Edwin A. Robson and Roy W. Harper recused themselves
and took no part in the consideration or decision of this matter.
In addition, Judge Joseph S. Lord, III took no part in the
: consideration or decision of this matter.
1l/ The Panel denied a request for oral argument on this motion
on February 3, 1977. ’