IN RE: Wiring Device Antitrust Litigation

Case MDL No. 331 Document 2 Filed 05/05/15 Bdge 1 of 26~
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL fan ey
Co on =£ om 22 ET	: [on Re wv at Na : To
: - MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION HE — ZEEE
: op I Eas yoIN RE WIRING DEVICE ANTITRUST LITIGATION ) DOCKET NOs; 3315: 7 fFRR =! ES ! - . .
OPINION AND ORDER iF 5 E	EF =
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
PER CURIAM Sn
This litigation was spawned by the indictment of seven
manufacturers, a corporation that manages trade associations, '
/ :
“and eleven of their present and former officers for con- Po oo
| vo »
spiracy to fix prices of electrical wiring devices, in L
violation of the federal antitrust laws. A companion civil Lo
action brought by the Government names the eight indicted x
corporations and one indicted individual as defendants. The f :
Government also filed a related criminal information charging Es
misdemeanor violations of the Sherman Act zgainst a ninth i
* Judges Wisdom, Weinfeld and Robson took no part in the UE SR
decision of this matter. : NE
1l/ The complaints in this litigation basically define wiring
devices as follows:
The term wiring devices means current carrying
electrical products that serve primarily as a con-
nection and/or control point for an electrical circuit
and certain products commonly used therewith which
do not themselves carry an electrical current,
including, but not limited to, switches, receptacles,
power cutlets, caps, containers, incandescent lamp-
holders, wallplates, weatherprcof boxes and covers,
and combination devices, but not including flourescent
lampholders and dimmers.

. . Case MDL No. 331 Document2 Filed 05/05/15 Page	2 of 20
- 2 =
® corporation and its former president. These Government actionswere all filed on October 27, 1977 in the District of Connecticut.
We are advised that the indicted defendants have pleaded
nolo contendere to the charges against them, and that one
of the defendants named in the information has pleaded guilty
to a misdemeanor.
This litigation presently consists of fifteen private
civil actions pending in six districts: six in the District
of Connecticut, three in the Eastern District of New York,
2/
two each in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the
3/
Southern District of New York,- and one each in the Northern
® District of Illinois and the District of South Carolina.
Each of the private actions was filed as a purported
class action on behalf of various purchasers of wiring devices.
While there are many variations in the descriptions of the
classes that plaintiffs seek to represent, all are nation-
wide classes of all or some group of purchasers of wiring
devices. The seven manufacturers indicted by the Government
are all named as defendants in fourteen of the private actions;
2/ A third action that was pending in the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania was recently dismissed. Plaintiff in that
action is also a plaintiff in one of the Connecticut actions.
3/ Plaintiff in one of the Southern District of New York
actions has also filed one of the actions pending in the
District of Connecticut. This plaintiff states that he has
consented to suspend proceedings in his New York action and
® that he intends to prosecute only his Connecticut action.

. . Case MDL No. 331 Document2 Filed 05/05/15 Page	3 of 20
- 3 =
® the fifteenth private action includes six of these manufacturers
as defendants. The eighth indicted corporation, the twelve
individual criminal defendants, three unindicted corporations
and an unindicted trade association are named as defendants
in many of the private actions.
The complaints in the private actions track the
Government's allegations and basically allege that 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
wiring devices.
® This litigation is before the Panel on the motion of23 defendants, including the six defendants common to all
private actions, for transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407
of all the private actions pending in districts other than
the Southern District of New York to that district for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the
actions pending there. Alternatively, movants urge transfer
to the Eastern District of New York. All responding parties
agree on the propriety of transfer, and the only dispute
concerns the most appropriate transferee district. Plaintiffs
in nine actions favor the Eastern District of New York as
®

. . Case MDL No. 331 Document2 Filed 05/05/15 Page	4 of 20
- 4 =
® either their first choice or as an alternative choice.
Various plaintiffs have also suggested the District of
Connecticut, the Southern District of New York cr the
4/
District of South Carolina as potential transferee forums.
We find that the private actions involve common questions
of fact and that their transfer under Section 1407 to the
Eastern District of New York will best serve the convenience
of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation.
Those plaintiffs that favor transfer to the District
of Connecticut argue that coordination between the pending
Government criminal and civil proceedings, as well as access
® to grand jury materials, which are under the control of the
Connecticut court, can most effectively be facilitated there.
These plaintiffs also point out that Judge M. Joseph Blumenfeld,
to whom the criminal proceedings, the Government civil :
action, and the private civil actions pending in the District
of Connecticut have been assigned, is thoroughly familiar
with the issues in this litigation and is experienced in
handling complex and multidistrict litigation.
4/ Only the plaintiff in the action pending in the District
of South Carolina favors transfer to that district. This
plaintiff urges transfer to the District of South Carolina
because that district has a more current civil docket than
any of the other potential transferee districts suggested
by the parties in this litigation. Unlike those other
districts, however, the District of South Carolina meets
® none of the cther criteria for a transferee district under	Section 1407, and we find that that district would not be
an appropriate transferee district for this litigation.

- . Case MDL No. 331 Document2 Filed 05/05/15 Page	5 of 20
- 5 =
® We recognize that the Panel has often transferred litiga-
tions to a district in which related Government proceedings
3/
are, or were, pending, and that the Panel has sometimes
assigned the private actions to the judge who presided over
8/
those Government proceedings. Under the circumstances of
this litigation, however, we are persuaded that transferring
the private actions to the Eastern District of New York will
result in the most efficient and expeditious resolution of
both the Government and private actions. Pretrial proceedings
in the actions in the Eastern District of New York are
relatively advanced in comparison to the status of other
® actions in this litigation. Judge Jack B. Weinstein, to
whom the three Eastern District of New York actions have
been assigned, already has ordered all defendants before
him to produce to plaintiffs in those actions copies of
any relevant documents in defendants' possession that were
submitted to the Connecticut grand jury, and to provide those
plaintiffs with a list of all persons whom defendants know
5/ See, e.g., In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litiga-
tion, F. Supp. ’ (JeP.M.L., filed Nov. 29, 1977)
(slip op. at 6-7); In re Anthracite Coal Antitrust Litigation,
436 F. Supp. 402, 403 (J.P.M.L. 1977).
6/ See, e.g., In re Hawaiian Hotel Room Rate Antitrust
Litigation, 438 F. Supp. 935, 936 (J.P.M.L. 1977); In re
South Central States Bakery Products Antitrust Litigation,
@ 433 F. Supp. 1127, 1130 (J.P.M.L. 1977).

~ . Case MDL No. 331 Documgnt2 Filed 05/05/15 Page	6 of 20
/
® testified before the grand jury. Thus much cf the co-ordination that ordinarily takes place between Government
proceedings and related private actions already has been
initiated in the Eastern District of New York. We are
confident that communication and cooperation between the
judges handling the private and Government actions, together
with the cooperation and assistance of the Government, all
parties and their counsel, will be sufficient to accomplish
any further coordination which may be necessary between the
Government and private actions, including the consideration
of any requests that the private litigants may make for additional
grand jury and other materials involved in the Government
proceedings. Any further coordination efforts will, of course,
® be facilitated by the geographical accessibility of New York
to Hartford. See In re Plumbing Fixture Cases, 295 F. Supp.
33, 33-34 (J.P.M.L. 1968). Judge Weinstein, in addition to
his orders concerning grand jury matters, has ordered the parties
in the actions before him to complete discovery on the question
of class action certification by March 1, 1078. % If deemed
| appropriate by the transferee judge, both the grand jury
and class action discovery in the Eastern District of New
York actions could be made available to the parties
7/ The complaints in the Eastern District of New York actions
name as defendants 22 of the 25 defendants named in the actions
in this litigation, including all the defendants involved in
the Government criminal and civil actions.
) 8/ Briefing of the class action determination issues pre-	sently is scheduled to be completed in mid-May 1978.

- } Case MDL No. 331 Document 2 Filed 05/05/15 Page 7 of 20
- 7 =
® erie tiricarion Y Cl	in the other actions in this litigation, thus streamlining
the entire litigation and furthering the expeditious resolu- |
tion of the important class action determination issues.
Several additional factors commend transfer of this
litigation to the Eastern District of New York. Most of
the corporate defendants have their principal places of
business, and most of the individual defendants reside, in
the New York area. Moreover, the complaints in this
litigation allege that defendants' price-fixing conspiracy B
was in great part organized and effectuated at meetings of
the Wiring Device Association, an apparently disbanded trade
® association of wiring device manufacturers, which had its
headquarters in the New York area. Thus, many relevant docu-
ments and witnesses are located in or near New York. Also, all
defendants that have taken a position and plaintiffs in a
majority of the actions favor transfer to a New York forum.
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 Eastern District of
9/ See Manual for Complex Litigation, Parts I and II,
9 §§3.11 (rev. ed. 1977). |

. . Case MDL No. 331 Document2 Filed 05/05/15 Page	8 of 20
® neNew York be, and the same hereby are, transferred to that
district and, with the consent of that court, assigned to
the Honorable Jack B. Weinstein for coordinated or con-
solidated pretrial proceedings with the actions listed on
Schedule A and pending there.
®
®

- . Case MDL No. 331 Document2 Filed 05/05/15 Page	9 of 20
DOCKET NO. 331
SCHEDULE A
® DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT Civil Action No.
John H. Dubin v. Leviton Manufacturing H-77-568
Co., Inc., et al.
Comspace Corporation v. Leviton H-77-578
Manufacturing Co., Inc., et al.
Vallese Electric Supply Co., Inc., H-77-606
etc.v. Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc.,
et al.
Gold Seal Electric Supply Co. v. H-77-615
Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc., et al.
Pyramid Electric Supply Co., Inc., H-77-613
etc. v. Leviton Manufacturing Co.,
Inc., et al. -
Mayers Electric Co. v. Leviton H-77-645
Manufacturing Co., Inc., et al.
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
® Efengee Electrical Supply Co., et al. 77-C-4800
v. Eagle Electric Manufacturing Co.,
Inc., et al.
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Big D Building Supply Corp. v. Leviton 77C2167
Manufacturing Co., Inc., et al.
Jamestown Electric Supply v. Leviton 77C2440
Manufacturing Co., Inc., et al.
Pitts Corp., d/b/a Clark Supply Co. Vv. 77C2441
Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc., et al.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Dunhill Manufacturing & Distributing Corp. 77-Civ-5360
v. Bell Electric Co., Inc., et al.
John H. Dubin v. Leviton Manufacturing 77-Civ-5359
Cc., Inc., et al.
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANTA
® CBC Industries, Inc., etc. v. Leviton 77-4277
Manufacturing Co., Inc., et al.

N . Case MDL No. 331 Document 2 Filed 05/05/15 Page 10 of 20
® Docket Neo. 331 =-- Schedule A - Continued
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA (Cont.) Civil Action No.
Rose Electric Supply Co. v. Leviton 77-4324
Manufacturing Co., Inc., et al.
DISTRICT QF SOUTH CAROLINA
General Supplies, Inc. v. Leviton 78-0026
Manufacturing Co., Inc., et al.

Br IEE TT TTTTETILAES ee Ie T= ;
Case MDL No. 331 Document 2 Filed 05/0585; Page 11@220
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ToS BE
: ON =r — Taz = ooAT ~ STE Peo -
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION — am : Co
r= 3 © :
ol SEZ |
IN RE WIRING DEVICE ANTITRUST LITIGATION ) DOCKET:=NO. 33lz ; .
ioe :
OPINION AND ORDER : EE oo
” i h
—_ yi)BEFORE JOHN MINOR WISDCM*, 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
PER CURIAM : | -
This litigation was spawned by the indictment of seven .
manufacturers, a corporation that manages trade associations,
and eleven of their present and former officers for con- B : co
vo N
spiracy to fix prices of electrical wiring devices, in
violation of the federal antitrust laws. A companion civil - |
action brought by the Government names the eight indicted :
corporations and one indicted individual as defendants. The
Government also filed a related criminal information charging :
misdemeanor violations of the Sherman Act against a ninth :
* Judges Wisdom, Weinfeld and Robson tcok no part in the Lr SR
decision of this matter. : EE
1/ The complaints in this litigation basically define wiring
devices as follows:
The term wiring devices means current carrying
electrical products that serve primarily as a con-
nection and/or control point for an electrical circuit
and certain products commonly used therewith which
do not themselves carry an electrical current,
including, but not limited to, switches, receptacles,
power outlets, caps, containers, incandescent lamp-
holders, wallplates, weatherproof boxes and covers,
and combination devices, but not including flourescent
lampholcders and dimmers.

. . Case MDL No. 331 Document2 Filed 05/05/15 Page 12 of 20
- 2 -
® corporation and its former president. These Government actionswere all filed on October 27, 1977 in the District of Connecticut.
We are advised that the indicted defendants have pleaded
nolo contendere to the charges against them, and that one
of the defendants named in the information has pleaded guilty
to a misdemeanor.
This litigation presently consists of fifteen private
civil actions pending in six districts: six in the District
of Connecticut, three in the Eastern District of New York,
2/
two each in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the
3
Southern District of New York,- and one each in the Northern
® District of Illinois and the District of South Carolina.
Each of the private actions was filed as a purported
class action on behalf of various purchasers of wiring devices.
While there are many variations in the descriptions of the
classes that plaintiffs seek to represent, all are nation-
wide classes of all or some group of purchasers of wiring
devices. The seven manufacturers indicted by the Government
are all named as defendants in fourteen of the private actions:
2/ A third action that was pending in the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania was recently dismissed. Plaintiff in that
action is also a plaintiff in one of the Connecticut actions.
3/ Plaintiff in one of the Southern District of New York
actions has also filed one of the actions pending in the
District of Connecticut. This plaintiff states that he has
consented to suspend proceedings in his New York action and
® that he intends to prosecute only his Connecticut action.

, . Case MDL No. 331 Document2 Filed 05/05/15 Page 13 of 20
- 3 -
® the fifteenth private action includes six of these manufacturers
as defendants. The eighth indicted corporation, the twelve
individual criminal defendants, three unindicted corporations
and an unindicted trade association are named as defendants
in many of the private actions.
The complaints in the private acticns track the
- Government's allegations and basically allege that 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
wiring devices.
® This litigation is before the Panel on the motion of23 defendants, including the six defendants common to all
private actions, for transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407
of all the private actions pending in districts other than
the Southern District of New York to that district for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the
actions pending there. Alternatively, movants urge transfer
to the Eastern District of New York. All responding parties
agree on the propriety of transfer, and the only dispute
concerns the most appropriate transferee district. Plaintiffs
in nine actions favor the Eastern District of New York as
®

’ . Case MDL No. 331 Document2 Filed 05/05/15 Page 14 of 20
- 4 =~
) either their first choice or as an alternative choice.
Various plaintiffs have also suggested the District of
Connecticut, the Southern District of New York or the
4/
District of South Carolina as potential transferee forums.
We find that the private actions involve common questions
of fact and that their transfer under Section 1407 to the
Eastern District of New York will best serve the convenience
of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and i
efficient conduct of the litigation.
Those plaintiffs that favor transfer to the District
of Connecticut argue that coordination between the pending
Government criminal and civil proceedings, as well as access
® to grand jury materials, which are under the control of the
Connecticut court, can most effectively be facilitated there.
These plaintiffs alsc point out that Judge M. Joseph Blumenfeld,
to whom the criminal proceedings, the Government civil :
action, and the private civil actions pending in the District
of Connecticut have been assigned, is thoroughly familiar
with the issues in this litigation and is experienced in
handling complex and multidistrict litigation.
4/ Only the plaintiff in the action pending in the District
of South Carolina favors transfer to that district. This
plaintiff urges transfer to the District of South Carolina
because that district has a more current civil docket than
any of the other potential transferee districts suggested
by the parties in this litigation. Unlike those other
districts, however, the District of South Carolina meets
@® none of the other criteria for a transferee district under	Section 1407, and we find that that district would not be
an appropriate transferee district for this litigation.

- . Case MDL No. 331 Document2 Filed 05/05/15 Page 15 of 20
- 5 =
® We recognize that the Panel has often transferred litiga-tions to a district in which related Government proceedings
3/
are, or were, pending, and that the Panel has sometimes
assigned the private actions to the judge who presided over
8/
those Government proceedings. Under the circumstances of
this litigation, however, we are persuaded that transferring
the private actions to the Eastern District of New York will
result in the most efficient and expeditious resolution of
both the Government and private actions. Pretrial proceedings
in the actions in the Eastern District of New York are
relatively advanced in comparison to the status of other
® actions in this litigation. Judge Jack B. Weinstein, to
whom the three Eastern District of New York actions have
been assigned, already has ordered all defendants before
him to produce to plaintiffs in those actions copies of
any relevant documents in defendants' possession that were
submitted to the Connecticut grand jury, and to provide those
plaintiffs with a list of all perscns whom defendants know
5/ See, e.g9., In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litiga-
~ tion, F. Supp. ’ (JeP.M.L., filed Nov. 29, 1977)
(slip op. at 6-7); In re Anthracite Coal Antitrust Litigation,
436 F. Supp. 402, 403 (J.P.M.L. 1977).
6/ See, e.g., In re Hawaiian Hotel Room Rate Antitrust
Litigation, 438 F. Supp. 935, 936 (J.P.M.,L. 1977): In re
South Central States Bakery Products Antitrust Litigation,
Qo 433 F. Supp. 1127, 1130 (J.P.M.L. 1977).

- . Case MDL No. 331 Documegt 2 Filed 05/05/15 Page 16 of 20
/
testified before the grand jury. Thus much cf the co-
® ordination that ordinarily takes place between Government
proceedings and related private actions already has been
initiated in the Eastern District of New York. We are
confident that communication and cooperation between the
judges handling the private and Government actions, together
with the cooperation and assistance of the Government, all
parties and their counsel, will be sufficient to accomplish
any further coordination which may be necessary between the
Government and private actions, including the consideration
of any requests that the private litigants may make for additional
grand jury and other materials involved in the Government
proceedings. Any further coordination efforts will, of course,
® be facilitated by the geographical accessibility of New York
to Hartford. See In re Plumbing Fixture Cases, 295 F. Supp.
33, 33-34 (J.P.M.L. 1968). Judge Weinstein, in addition to
his orders concerning grand jury matters, has ordered the parties
in the actions before him to complete discovery on the question
of class action certification by March 1, 1978. If deemed
| appropriate by the transferee judge, both the grand jury
and class action discovery in the Eastern District of New
York actions could be made available to the parties
7/ The complaints in the Eastern District of New York actions
name as defendants 22 of the 25 defendants named in the actions
in this litigation, including all the defendants involved in
the Government criminal and civil actions.
8/ Briefing of the class action determination issues pre-
C sently is scheduled to be completed in mid-May 1978.

- . Case MDL No. 331 Document 2 Filed 05/05/15 Page 17 of 20
- 7 =
9/
([ in the other actions in this litigation, thus streamlining
the entire litigation and furthering the expeditious resolu- |
tion of the important class action determination issues.
Several additional factors commend transfer of this
litigation to the Eastern District of New York. Most of
the corporate defendants have their principal places of
- business, and most of the individual defendants reside, in
the New York area. Moreover, the complaints in this
litigation allege that defendants’ price-fixing conspiracy
was in great part organized and effectuated at meetings of
the Wiring Device Association, an apparently disbanded trade
® association of wiring device manufacturers, which had its
headquarters in the New York area. Thus, many relevant docu-
ments and witnesses are located in or near New York. Also, all
defendants that have taken a position and plaintiffs in a
majority of the actions favor transfer to a New York forum.
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 Eastern District of
9/ See Manual for Complex Litigation, Parts I and II,
® §§3.11 (rev. ed. 1977). |

. . Case MDL No. 331 Document 2 Filed 05/05/15 Page 18 of 20
J roby	New York be, and the same hereby are, transferred to that
district and, with the consent of that court, assigned to
the Honorable Jack B. Weinstein for coordinated or con-
solidated pretrial proceedings with the actions listed on
Schedule A and pending there.
®
®

. . Case MDL No. 331 Document 2 Filed 05/05/15 Page 19 of 20
DOCKET NO. 331
SCHEDULE A
® . DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT Civil Action No.
John H. Dubin v. Leviton Manufacturing H-77-568
Co., Inc., et al.
Comspace Corporation v. Leviton H-77-578
Manufacturing Co., Inc., et al.
Vallese Electric Supply Co., Inc., H-77-606
etc.v. Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc.,
et al.
Gold Seal Electric Supply Co. Vv. H-77-615
Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc., et al.
Pyramid Electric Supply Co., Inc., H-77-613
etc. v. Leviton Manufacturing Co.,
Inc., et al.
Mayers Electric Co. v. Leviton H-77-645
Manufacturing Co., Inc., et al.
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
® Efengee Electrical Supply Co., et al. 77-C-4800
v. Eagle Electric Manufacturing Co.,
Inc., et al.
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Big D Building Supply Corp. v. Leviton 77C2167
Manufacturing Co., Inc., et al.
Jamestown Electric Supply v. Leviton 77C2440
Manufacturing Co., Inc., et al.
Pitts Corp., d/b/a Clark Supply Co. v. 77C2441
Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc., et al.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Dunhill Manufacturing & Distributing Corp. 77-Civ-5360
v. Bell Electric Co., Inc., et al.
John H. Dubin v. Leviton Manufacturing 77-Civ-535¢
Co., Inc., et al.
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
® CBC Industries, Inc., etc. v. Leviton 77-4277
Manufacturing Co., Inc., et al.

. . Case MDL No. 331 Document 2 Filed 05/05/15 Page 20 of 20 :
® Docket Nec. 331 -- Schedule A - ContinuedEASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA (Cont.) Civil Action No.
Rose Electric Supply Co. v. Leviton 77-4324
Manufacturing Co., Inc., et al.
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
General Supplies, Inc. v. Leviton 78-0026
Manufacturing Co., Inc., et al.