IN RE: Commercial Lighting Products, Inc., Contract Litigation

) . Case MDL No. 245 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 1 0f5
[ot	{ !
( BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL DEAL PANE:	GLIAL PANEL ON
ON MoH [Fc EhonMULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION FHUED
IN RE COMMERCIAL LIGHTING PRODUCTS, INC.) DOCKRUNE [815
CONTRACT LITIGATION )
PATRICIA 0. HOWARDOPINION AND ORDER CLERK OF THE PANEL
BEFORE JOHN MINOR WISDOM, CHAIRMAN, AND EDWARD WEINFELD*, EDWIN
A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER, JOSEPH S. LORD, III*, STANLEY A.
WEIGEL, AND ANDREW A. CAFFREY, JUDGES OF THE PANEL
PER CURIAM
This litigation consists of two actions brought by
Commercial Lighting Products, Inc. in two federal districts:
one in the Eastern District of Michigan and the other in the
® Southern District of Indiana. Industrial Lighting Products” Co. and its president, Lawrence Nelson, are defendants in both
actions while the Indiana action includes, as additional defend-
ants, Glendon Abrams, Larry Blade and Charles E. Davis.
In its Michigan complaint, Commercial alleges that
Industrial and Nelson tortiously interfered with Commercial's
contractual relationships with certain of its sales representa-
tives and that defendants attempted to interfere with existing
contractual relationships with other sales representatives.
* Judges Weinfeld and Lord were unable to attend
the Panel hearing and, therefore, took no part
in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Case MDL No. 245 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 2 of 5 ’ ’
a. ®
Commercial also claims that Industrial and Nelson wrongfully
appropriated Commercial's trade secrets and customer lists, and
did so in conspiracy with certain former sales representatives
of Commercial presently employed by Industrial.
The Indiana complaint includes allegations similar
to those asserted in the Michigan complaint; and in addition
seeks damages from Abrams, Blade and Davis for alleged breaches
of their contracts with Commercial. A further allegation made
only in the Indiana complaint is that the five defendants in
that action engaged in a conspiracy to wrongfully induce other
Commercial sales representatives to breach their contracts
with Commercial. ®All defendants move the Panel for an order transfer-
ring the Indiana action to the Eastern District of Michigan
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §l407, with the action pending in that district.
Commercial opposes the motion. We find insufficient basis
| for transfer under Section 1407 and, accordingly, deny
the motion.
Movants contend that transfer is necessary because
the two actions share common factual questions relating to
what Industrial and Nelson did, what the sales representatives
did and whether the acts of Industrial and Nelson induced
the acts of the sales representatives. Movants maintain
that except for any additional issues concerning the ®

- ’ Case MDL No. 245 Document2 Filed 05/01/15 Page	3 of 5
® alleged involvement of Abrams, Blade and Davis in attempts to
attract other representatives away from Commercial, all the
essential factual questions raised in the Indiana action are
involved in the Michigan action. Thus, they assert, transfer
will avoid duplicative discovery and unnecessary incon-
venignce to the parties and their witnesses.
When only a minimal number of actions are under
consideration for transfer under Section 1407, the moving party
bears a strong burden to show that the common questions of fact
are so complex and the accompanying discovery so time-consuming
as to serve the overall convenience of the parties and witnesses
® and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.See In re scotch Whiskey Antitrust Litigation, 299 F. Supp. 543,
544 (J.P.M.L. 1969). Only two relatively simple contract and
tort actions are before us. While we recognize that these
actions share common questions of fact, we are not persuaded
that the common factual questions are complex enough to warrant
trans fer. Id.
Defendants, and plaintiff as well, can take certain
measures in order	to avoid duplicative discovery. For example,
notices for a particular deposition could be filed in both
the Michigan and Indiana district courts, thereby making
the deposition applicable in each jurisdiction; defendants
could seek a stipulation among the parties that all discovery
) may be used in both actions; and defendants could seek ordersfrom the two courts directing the parties to coordinate their
pretrial efforts. See also Manual for Complex Litigation,

Case MDL No. 245 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 4 of 5 : :
- 4 - [
Part I, §3.11 (rev. ed. 1973). Thus, suitable alternatives
to transfer under Section 1407 are available to all parties
in this litigation.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §1407 to transfer the action listed on the follow-
ing Schedule A be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
J
®

. : Case MDL No. 245 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 5 of 5
® SCHEDULE A DOCKET NO. 245
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Commercial Lighting Products, Inc. v. Industrial Civil Action
Lighting Products Co., et al. No. 571704
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
Commercial Lighting Products, Inc. v. Industrial Civil Action
Lighting Products Co., et al. No. IP75-655-C