IN RE: Coconut Oil Antitrust Litigation

) Case MDL No. 474 Document 2 Filed 05/19/15 Page 1 of 3 |
Ar JEIin A, ’ : :	3 ULL PAN a Co
DOCKET NO. 474 PHIRI SR
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION, v) 1981 8 . Se CiIN RE COCONUT OIL ANTITRUST LITIGATION PAT IR, aoe 7% | IEClery [83 Fu AAD ore
TRANSFER ORDER METAR ’
This litigation consists of four actions, listed on
the attached Schedule A, pending in two districts -- two
actions in the Central District of California and two actions
in the Northern District of California. Presently before EE
the Panel is a motion by the plaintiffs in the Central District o Ce
of California actions for transfer under 28 U.S.C. §1407 oo
of the Northern District of California actions to the Central Co
District of California for coordinated or consolidated pretrial EE Lo
proceedings with the two actions pending there. No responding .
party opposes centralization, but disagreement exists over
the selection of the transferee forum. The plaintiffs in
the Northern District of California actions and the three :
companies which are the same and only defendants in each oo
action favor selection of the Northern District of California SER
as the transferee forum. a
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held, } Co
the Panel finds that the actions in this litigation involve
common questions of fact and that centralization under 28
U.S.C. §1407 in the Northern District of California will
best serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. ’ CL
All the actions presently before the Panel contain nearly
identical allegations that defendants, in violation of Section Co
1 of the Sherman Act, combined and conspired to raise, fix, :
maintain and stabilize the price of crude coconut oil in
the United States. Additionally, each action is brought :
as a class action. Transfer under Section 1407 is clearly .
necessary in order to avoid duplicative discovery, further Ld
judicial efficiency and prevent conflicting pretrial rulings. i
While either the Central District of California or E So
the Northern District of California could be considered .
an appropriate transferee forum for this litigation, on
balance we are persuaded that the Northern District of California
is preferable. Movants, in support of selection of the
Central District of California, argue that coordination
between the actions in this docket and a pending Government . : .
civil proceeding in that district, as well as access to SUC
grand jury materials, which are under control of the court So
in the Central District of California,	can most effectively
be facilitated if the Panel centralizes the actions in this
docket there. We recognize that the Panel has often transferred EUR Co
litigations to a district in which related Government and/or EE :
grand jury proceedings are, or were, pending. Under the
circumstances of the litigation, however, we are persuaded
that centralizing the actions before us in the Northern
District of California will result in the most efficient
and expeditious resolution of both the Government and private a

Case MDL No. 474 Document2 Filed 05/19/15 Page	2 of 3
—-2
LC) actions. The defendants and the Northern District of Californiaplaintiffs stress that 1) no criminal indictment resulted
from grand jury proceedings occurring in the Central District
of California; 2) although a Government civil proceeding
is currently pending in the Central District of California,
there has been no discovery in the Government action and
the parties thereto are engaged in serious consent negotiations;
and 3) the documents which the defendants produced to the
grand jury have already been produced to the plaintiffs
in the Northern District of California during the ongoing
discovery in the actions pending there. Thus much of the
coordination that ordinarily takes place between Government
proceedings and related private actions has either already
been initiated or, under the circumstances of this docket,
is unlikely to be necessary. We are confident that communication
and cooperation between the courts in the Central and Northern
Districts of California (a matter facilitated by the access-
ibility of Los Angeles to San Francisco), 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, including the
consideration of any requests that the private litigants
may make for additional grand jury and other materials involved
in the Government proceedings.
® Additional factors commend transfer of this litigation
to the Northern District of California. The defendants,
their documents and their officers and employees are all
located in the San Francisco area. Thus many witnesses
and documents can be expected to be located in or near San
Francisco. Apart from the pendency of the Government proceedings
in Los Angeles, the Central District of California offers
no real nexus to the conspiracy alleged in these actions.
Furthermore, the Northern District of California actions,
perhaps by virtue of being the first filed, are furthest
advanced, as demonstrated by the significant amount of documents
which have already been made available to the plaintiffs :
in those actions.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1407, the actions listed on the following Schedule A and
pending in the Central District of California be, and the
same hereby are, transferred to the Northern District of
California and, with the consent of that court, assigned
to the Honorable William H. Orrick, Jr., for coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions listed
on the attached Schedule A and pending there.
FOR THE PANEL:
® Coviris @- CfAndrew A. Caffrey
Chairman

f . .
ToT Case MDL No. 474 Document2 Filed 05/19/15 Page	3 of 3
9 SCHEDULE A
MDL-474 —-- In re Coconut 0il Antitrust Litigation
Northern District of california
McIntyre Chemical Co. v. Crown Oil Corporation, et al.,
C.A. No. C81-0978-WHO .
Acme-Hardesty Co., Inc. Vv. Crown Oil Corporation, et al.,
C.A. No. C81-0933-WHO
Central District of California
C. F. Simonin's sons, Inc. Vv. Crown Oil Corporation, et al.,
Wilsey Foods, Inc. v. Crown Oil Corporation, et al.,
C.A. No. C81-1274-TJH