IN RE: Anthracite Coal Antitrust Litigation

EE a SS ere EC
Case MDL No. 293 Document 2 Filed 05/05/15 Page 1 of 6| MUL my
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL CSTR oy .
: ON ; I. w= Cay, a 2
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION Bi Is ~	9 :
IN RE ANTHRACITE COAL ANTITRUST LITIGATION ) CADOGKET rg 293 - oo	nf nd Yobia . o
| OF Figphan iol
HEE) 15 : .
| : OPINION AND ORDER 3113/77.ee » A
BEFORE JOHN MINOR WISDOM, CHAIRMAN, AND EDWARD WEINFELD,
EDWIN A. ROBSON, JOSEPH S. LORD, III*, STANLEY A. WEIGEL,
ANDREW A. CAFFREY AND ROY W. HARPER, JUDGES OF THE PANEL. oo SE
PER CURIAM EEE
This litigation consists of seven actions pending in -
three federal districts -- three in the Middle District of .
Pennsylvania, three in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
and one in the Southern District of New York. Each action
is brought under the federal antitrust laws against the :
same six defendants, which are engaged in the business of ° Lo
mining, processing and/or selling coal. Plaintiffs Co
) in each action allege a conspiracy among the defendants and So
unnamed co-conspirators to fix prices of anthracite coal
from 1961 to at least 1974. The named plaintiffs were
purchasers of coal during the relevant period. All actions :
except one of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania actions : : oo
are brought as class actions on behalf of various overlapping :
groups of purchasers of coal.
* Judge Lord took no part in the consideration or decision :
of this matter. :

) Case MDL No. 293 Documgnt2 Filed 05/05/15 Page	2 of 6
Several defendants have moved the Panel to transfer |
® - the foregoing seven actions to a single district pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §1407 for coordinated or consolidated pretrial |
provesdings.> All responding parties either agree or ex-
press no position on the desirability of transfer in this
litigation. The only real dispute is over the selection of
an appropriate transferee forum. Two districts have been
| suggested -- the Middle District of Pennsylvania and the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held,
we find that these seven actions involve common questions of
fact and that their transfer to the Middle District of
Pennsylvania under Section 1407 will best serve the convenience
® of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of the actions.
As is often true in multidistrict antitrust actions, the
actions before us raise common factual questions concerning
the existence, scope and effect of the alleged conspiracy
" and therefore transfer under Section 1407 is necessary in
order to prevent duplicative discovery, eliminate the possibility
of conflicting pretrial rulings and streamline theremainder
of the pretrial proceedings as well. See, e.g., In re Beef
1/Subsequent to the Panel hearing on this matter, two defendants
filed a motion which sought to include an apparently related
eighth action in this litigation -- Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
v. Blue Coal Corporation, et al., E.D. Penn., C.A. No. 77-699.
: Since this action came to the attention of the Panel too late
) to be included in the initial hearing, this action will be	treated as a tag-along action. Rule 10(d), R.P.J.P.M.L., 65
F.R.D. 253, 260 (1975).

i ) Case MDL No. 293 Docan@n+2 Filed 05/05/15 Page	3 of 6
. Industry Antitrust Litigation, 419 F. Supp. 720, 721
[ (J.P.M.L. 1976). Significantly, transfer for coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings will ensure consistent
treatment of the class action issues in these actions. See
In re Folding Carton Antitrust Litigation, 415 F. Supp. 384,
386 (J.P.M.L. 1976). |
Because of the proximity of the proposed transferee
courts, selection of either one of them would not seriously
inconvenience any party. On balance, we are persuaded that
the Middle District of Pennsylvania is preferable. The grand
jury investigation in a related criminal action occurred in
that district, and a considerable number of documents
relevant to the government investigation of the anthracite
coal industry have been accumulated in the Middle District
® of Pennsylvania as a result. The plaintiffs in several
actions have recognized the importance of those documents
to their actions and have petitioned the judge assigned to
the criminal action for access to the documents. Thus,
transfer to that forum will best facilitate any necessary
coordination of document discovery between the government
criminal action and the private civil actions. See	In re
Sugar Industry Antitrust Litigation, 395 F. Supp. 1271, 1274
(F.P.M.L. 1975)..
Counsel for several parties argue that the Eastern |
District of Pennsylvania would be a more conveniently located
transferee forum for a majority of the attorneys involved in
® :

CT. Case MDL No. 293 Dosudenrt2 Filed 05/05/15 Page	4 of 6
these actions than would the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
® | The convenience of counsel, however, is not by itself a factorto be considered under Section 1407 in the Panel's decision °
whether to order transfer or in the selection of a transferee
forum for a group of actions. Only if the inconvenience of
counsel would inpinge on the convenience of the parties or
witnesses would the convenience of counsel become 2a factor
to be considered by the Panel. Such a situation is not
present here. See also In re Government Auto Fleet Sales
Antitrust Litigation, 328 F. Supp. 218, 219-20 (J.P.M.L.
1971).
One plaintiff argues that although transfers pursuant
to Section 1407 are only for pretrial, a Section 1407 transferee
judge often orders the actions transferred to his or her
® district for all purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1404 (a) or
cra06.% Therefore, this plaintiff contends, the Middle District
of Pennsylvania should not be selected as the transferee forum
because local sentiments in that district in favor of the coal
industry could make it difficult to empanel an impartial jury.
We find this contention irrelevant to the Panel's selection
of a transferee forum for pretrial of this litigation. We
observe that this contention may be presented to the transferee
. judge if the issue of trial of these actions arises in the
proceedings in the transferee district.
2/This procedure was approved in Pfizer, Inc. V. Lord, 447
F. 2d 122 (2nd cir. 1971).
® :

I Case MDL No. 293 Documgnt2 Filed 05/05/15 Page 50f 6
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 Middle District	of
Pennsylvania be, and the same hereby are, transferred to
"the Middle District of Pennsylvania and, with the consent
of that court, assigned to the Honorable Malcolm Muir
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
with the actions listed on Schedule A and already pending
there.
®
®

: Case MDL No. 293 Document 2 Filed 05/05/15 Page 6 of 6
SCHEDULE A :
® oo DOCKET NO. 293 |
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Civil Action No.
Penn Mart Realty Co., etc. v. Blue 76-1459
Coal Corp., et al.
Clair C. Connors and Shirley Connors, 76-1495
etc., v. Blue Coal Corp., et al. )
Wilkes-Barre Steam Heat Co., etc. v. 76-1500
: Blue Coal Corp., et al. :
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
The School District of Philadelphia, 76-3682
Pa., v. Blue Coal Corp., et al.
City of New York, N. Y., et al. wv. 77-253 :
Blue Coal Corp., et al.
State of New York v. Blue Coal Corp., 77-229
[ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Ardea Realty Corp. Vv. Blue Coal 77=-Civ=372
Corp., et al,