IN RE: Arc Furnace Transformer Products Liability Litigation

Case MDL No. 563 Document 2 Filed 06/02/15 Page 1 of 3
JUSIIAL PANEL ON
RULHHSTRICT LITIGATION
FRED
o | MAY -7 198%
DOCKET NO. 563 PATRICIA B. HUW AAD| CLERK OF THE FAKEL
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE ARC FURNACE TRANSFORMER PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION
ORDER
All parties in this litigation have requested that the Panel
hold in abeyance a decision on plaintiff Nucor Corporation's
motion for transfer under 28 U.S.C. §1407, pending the outcome
of settlement discussions among the parties.
IT IS ORDERED that unless the parties report to the Panel in
writing by 12 noon Eastern Daylight Time on May 16, 1984, that
the parties have reached a written settlement, this docket will
remain on the Panel's calendar for hearing on May 17, 1984, inWashington, D.C.
FOR THE PANEL:
C Andrew A. GofChairman

Case MDL No. 563 Document 2 Filed 06/02/15 Page 2 of 3
Cran	An 5
FAINICT LSAT,
Filed
® KAY 24 1984
ProafiCia boone
DOCKET NO. 563 CLERK 6F THE FANE
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE ARC FURNACE TRANSFORMER PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
ORDER DENYING TRANSFER#*
This litigation consists of one action pending in the District of
Nebraska and one action pending in the Northern District of Texas.
Presently before the Panel is a motion by the plaintiff in both
actions to transfer, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407, the Nebraska action
to the Northern District of Texas for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings with the action pending there. Defendants in
both actions oppose transfer.
On the basis of the papers filed, we find that Section 1407
transfer would neither serve the convenience of the partles and the
wltnesses nor further the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. Although we recognize that the actions in this litigation
may involve some common questions of fact, given the minimal number of
actions before us, we are not persuaded that these factual questions
are so complex, or the accompanying discovery so time-consuming, to
warrant transfer. See In re Scotch Whiskey Antitrust Liti ation, 299
F.Supp. 543, 544 (J.P.M.L. 1969). Furthermore, we point out that
suitable alternatives to transfer exist in order to minimize the
possibility of duplicative discovery and/or conflicting pretrial
rulings. See, e.g., In re E11 Lilly and Compan (Cephalexin
Monohydrate) Patent Litigation, 446 F.Supp. 2842, 244 (J.P.M.L. 1978).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1407 to centralize the actions listed on the attached Schedule A be,
and the same hereby 1s, DENIED.
FOR 5 PANEL:
© Andrew A. Caffrey
’ Chairman
* Judges Robert H. Schnacke and Sam C. Pointer, Jr. took no part in
the decision of this matter.
1l/ The parties waived oral argument and accordingly the question of
} transfer of these actions was submitted on the briefs. Rule 14,
R.P.J.P.M.L., 89 F.R.D. 273, 283-84 (1981).

Case MDL No. 563 Document 2 Filed 06/02/15 Page 3 of 3
| ®
Schedule A
MDL-563 —- In re Arc Furnace Transformer Product Lilabllity
Litigation
District of Nebraska
NUCOR Corporation v. ASEA, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
81-0-603
Northern District of Texas
NUCOR Corporation v. ASEA, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
®
®