IN RE: Preferential Drug Products Pricing Antitrust Litigation

‘ Case MDL No. 298 Document 2 Filed 05/05/15 Page 1 of 5 :
JUDICIAL BAREL © A
HULTIDISTRICT Loarioy :	<r
: BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL mien	D
ON -
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION RPR 11 1977 | oo
PATRICIA D. lin Af Go
CLERK OFTHE PAMLL I/77%
IN RE PREFERENTIAL DRUG PRODUCTS) VL
PRICING ANTITRUST LITIGATION ) DOCKET NO. 298
OPINION AND ORDER Co oo DE
BEFORE JOHN MINOR WISDOM, CHAIRMAN, AND EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN : Cl
A. ROBSON, JOSEPH S. LORD, III*, STANLEY A. WEIGEL, ANDREW A.
CAFFREY AND ROY W. HARPER, JUDGES OF THE PANEL.
PER CURIAM - En
This litigation consists of two actions, one each nL
pending in the Northern District of California and the
1l/
Central District of California. = The complaints in each
action are substantially similar and allege that defendants
violated Section 2(f) of the Robinson-Patman Act and
Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by their methods of
purchasing and distributing drug products. Both actions
are brought on behalf of a class of all present or :
* Judge Lord was unable to attend the Panel hearing and,
therefore, did not participate in the consideration or fo
decision of this matter.
l/ An additional potentially related action, Portland :
Retail Druggist Assn., Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, et al.,
D. Ore., Civil Action No. 71-543, came to the Panel's Co
attention too late to be included in the Panel's hearing t } :
on this matter. This action thus will be treated as a
tag-along action. Rule 10(d), R.P.J.P.M.L.,65 F.R.D. 253,
260 (1975). : : Co

TT	Case MDL No:298 Document? Filed 05/05/15 Page 20f5 oo
oo - 2 - Ch 3
former owners of retail or community pharmacies in E
California who are or were in competition with defendants oo - oo
or their affiliates from approximately 1973 until the .
present. The class alleged in the Northern District of : |
California action adds all present or former owners of
retail or community pharmacies in Oregon and Washington. a
Defendants in each action are organizations that are : Bis
involved in a direct-service health care program known
as the Raiser-Permanente Medical Care Program (the oo |
Program). All four defendants named in the Northern BN |
District of California action are named as defendants : | Ee
in the Central District of California action. The a .
Central District of California action includes four- :
teen additional defendants. |
Plaintiffs in each action jointly move the Panel to | | |
transfer the Northern District of California action to : .
the Central District of California for coordinated or | oo
consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. )
$1407 with the action pending there. Eleven of the :
defendants, including the four common defendants, cross- oo
moved the Panel to transfer the Central District of co
California action to the Northern District of California
pursuant to Section 1407. The seven remaining defendants
have joined in the cross-motion. Thus, all parties agree B
that these actions belong in the same district for -

5 Case MDL No. 298 Document2 Filed 05/05/15 Page	3 of 5
- 3 =
® coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The
only dispute among the parties is over the more :
appropriate transferee forum.
We find that these actions involve common questions
of fact and that transfer of the Northern District of
California action to the Central District of California
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
under Section 1407 with the action pending there will |
best serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of this
litigation. )
These two actions clearly share complex questions
of fact concerning defendants' methods of purchasing
@® and distributing drug products and therefore transfer
a under Section 1407 is necessary in order to prevent
a duplicative discovery. Moreover, placing both these
actions under the supervision of a single court will
eliminate the possibilities of conflicting class
determinations and of inconsistency with respect to
other pretrial rulings. See In re Clark Oil and Refining
Corporation Antitrust Litigation, 364 F. Supp. 458, 459
(J.P.M.L. 1973). |
| The defendants argue that the Northern District of
California is the appropriate transferee forum for this
litigation mainly because most of the defendants have

oe Case MDL No. 298 Document 2 Filed 05/05/15 Page	4 of 5 CT
—- 4 -
their headquarters in the San Francisco-Oakland vicinity @
and therefore that district will be the focal point of
discovery.
We believe that either of the districts wherein these
actions are pending could be described as an appropriate
transferee district. On balance, however, we are of the
view that the Central District of California is preferable.
On the basis of the record before us, it appears that key
: pharmaceutical witnesses are located in that district. In
addition, the Program maintains and operates numerous offices
in the Central District of California and those offices are
potential sources of discovery. Moreover, according to the :
latest available statistics, the median times from filing
to disposition and from issue to trial for civil actions are ®
significantly shorter in the Central District of California than
in the Northern District of california. Administrative Office
of the United States Courts, Management Statistics for United
States Courts (1976) at 101 and 103. Thus, the Central
District of California is in a better position to process
this litigation toward its most expeditious conclusion.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the action listed on the
| following Schedule A and pending in the Northern District of
| California be, and the same hereby is, transferred to the Central
| District of California and, with the consent of that court, assigned
to the Honorable Irving Hill for coordinated or consolidated pre-
trial proceedings, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407, with the action 9
pending in that district and listed on Schedule A. -

sa Case MDL No. 298 Document2 Filed 05/05/15 Page	5 of 5
® SCHEDULE ADOCKET NO. 298
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA : :
Portland Retail Druggists Assn., Inc. Civil Action No.
'v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., C76-2383-WHO
et al.
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mario de Mondeno, d/b/a Sixth Avenue Civil Action No.
Pharmacy, et al. v. Kaiser Foundation 77-0005-1H
Health Plan, Inc., et al.