IN RE: Gas Meter Antitrust Litigation

EE oo Case MDL No. 360 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 1 of 7 |
| JUDICIAL PANEL ON EAE
oo BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL HELTTISTRCT LTIGATIN SET
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION | J -9 Tg u ERR
IN RE GAS METER ANTITRUST ~~ ) DOCKET NO. 360...	- «= ZaLITIGATION CLERK	CF THE POL OT
OPINION AND ORDER :
BEFORE JOHN MINOR WISDOM, CHAIRMAN, AND EDWARD WEINFELD*, Ce - Soi
EDWIN A. ROBSON, STANLEY A. WEIGEL, ANDREW A. CAFFREY, co Tn
AND ROY W. HARPER, JUDGES OF THE PANEL. IEEE
PER CURIAM : LT
This litigation consists of four actions pending |
in two districts -- three in the Eastern District of IE r
Pennsylvania and one in the Northern District of Illinois. RE -
Plaintiffs in these actions are public utilities which N : CL
purchase gas meters for use in measuring the flow of = Co
gas being transmitted through distribution systems. oo Co Co
All the defendants are memsfacturers of gas meters. |
Rockwell International Corp. (Rockwell) and The Singer -
Company (Singer) are defendants in all four actions.
Textron, Inc. (Textron) is a defendant in the Illinois TT |
action and Sprague Meter Company (Sprague), a division
of Textron, is a defendant in two of the Pennsylvania a Co co
actions. Plaintiffs charge defendants and various unidenti- oo
fied co-conspirators with conspiring in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §1, to fix, raise,
maintain and stabilize the price of gas meters. oo
¥ Judge Weinfeld did not participate in the decision LT
of this matter. :

Case MDL No. 36Q Pacument 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 2 of 7 .
The Honorable Charles R. Weiner, to whom the three co | :
Pennsylvania actions are assigned, has consolidated those ENR
. actions for all pretrial purposes and has certified a: : Lo
class for all three actions comprised of all purchasers |
in the United States of gas meters from defendants, their
affiliates or subsidiaries during the period from a
To January 1, 1973 to December 31, 1977, excluding from IERIE ts
the class defendants, affiliates or subsidiaries of : oo HT
defendants, or other gas meter manufacturers. The Illinois | : oo
action is brought by two utilities located in Illinois oo
“and contains no class action allegations. RE ;
A federal grand jury in the Eastern District of ar :
Pennsylvania recently returned an indictment against oo .
Rockwell and Textron charging a conspiracy to -fix prices | B oo
of gas meters in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman oo |
Act. Singer was named as an unindicted co-conspirator
in this indictment. A companion civil action has been
brought by the United States in the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania against Rockwell, Textron and Singer. |
Singer and Sprague move the Panel, pursuant to 28 oo
U.S.C. §1407, to transfer the Illinois action to the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated or con-
solidated pretrial proceedings with the actions pending |
there. Rockwell and plaintiffs in the three Pennsylvania
actions also favor transfer. Plaintiffs in the Illinois oo
action oppose transfer. oo A

: p Case MDL No. 360 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page	3 of 7
- 3 -
® We find that these actions involve common questions
of fact and that transfer of the Illinois action to the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated or con-
solidated pretrial proceedings with the three actions
pending there will serve the convenience of the parties
and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct
of this litigation. .
Illinois plaintiffs argue in opposition to transfer
that additional actions may yet be filed in this litigation
and that a determination on the appropriateness of transfer
should await a more complete record. If the Panel does
C not defer its decision, Illinois plaintiffs contend that	transfer should be denied because the issues of fact
shared by these four actions are not unusually complex
and the accompanying discovery will not be sufficiently
time consuming to warrant transfer. At the present time,
cooperation among the parties and the two involved courts
would serve as a suitable alternative to transfer, Illinois
plaintiffs urge. Furthermore, Illinois plaintiffs assert,
because the Illinois action involves no class action
allegations, the discovery necessary to establish the
claims in the Illinois action will be much more limited
in scope than the discovery necessary in the Pennsylvania
actions, and transfer would needlessly involve the Illinois
® plaintiffs in proceedings irrelevant to their action.,

Case MDL No. 360 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page	4 of 7 / :
- 4 -
®Wwe find these arguments unpersuasive. All parties
recognize that the four actions presently before the
Panel involve common factual questions concerning the
alleged existence of a conspiracy to fix prices in the
gas meter industry. Discovery regarding those ‘questions,
including discovery pertaining to the nature of the gas
meter industry and the structure of the market for gas
meters, will be complex and time consuming. Inclusion
of the Illinois action in coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings with the three Pennsylvania actions
is thus necessary to prevent duplicative discovery and |
to eliminate the possibility of inconsistent pretrial
rulings. See In re Bristol Bay, Alaska, Salmon Fishery C
Antitrust Litigation, 424 F. Supp. 504, 505-06 (J.P.M.L.
1976).
While voluntary coordination of discovery efforts
among parties and their counsel is always commendable,
transfer of these actions to a single district under
Section 1407 will ensure the streamlining of discovery
and all other pretrial proceedings as well. See In re
Commonwealth 0il/Tesoro Petroleum Securities Litigation,
453 F. Supp. 223, 229 (J.P.M.L. 1978). Of course, the
Illinois plaintiffs need not participate in any pretrial
proceedings that are unrelated to the interests of those
parties. See, e.g2., Parts I and II, §§2.31, Manual for CComplex Litigation (rev. ed. 1977).

: . Case MDL No. 360 pocument 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page	5 of 7
C We see no reason to delay transfer in this litigationbecause of the possibility that additional actions may
be filed in the future. .If further actions are filed, .
they will be treated as tag-along actions by the Panel.
See Rules 1, 9 and 10, R.P.J.P.M.L., 78 F.R.D. 561, 562,
567-69 (1978). Transfer under Section 1407 at this time
will have the salutary effect of providing a ready forum
for the inclusion of any newly filed actions in the central-
ized pretrial proceedings. See In re Air Crash Disaster
at Stapleton International Airport in Denver, Colorado
on August 7, 1975, 447 F.Supp. 1071, 1072 (J.P.M.L.
1978).
We are persuaded that the Eastern District of Penn-
C sylvania is the appropriate transferee forum for this
litigation. Plaintiffs in the Pennsylvania actions represent
that they have already obtained access to many of the
documents which were produced to the Philadelphia grand
jury investigating the gas meter industry. Illinois
plaintiffs stated during oral argument before the Panel
that they will also seek access to these documents.
Transfer of this litigation to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania will best facilitate orderly access to the
documents and any necessary ccordination between the
private actions and the Government proceedings occurring
there. See In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation, 446
®

Case MDL No. 360 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page	6 of 7 - :
- 6 -
F. Supp. 759, 761 (J.P.M.L. 1978); In re Corrugated ®
Container Antitrust Litigation, 441 F. Supp. 921, 924
(J.P.M.L. 1977). Furthermore, Judge Weiner, through
his supervision of the Pennsylvania actions, has already
become familiar with the issues involved in this litigation
and is therefore in the best position to supervise it
to a just and expeditious conclusion. See In re
Griseofulvin Antitrust Litigation, 395 F. Supp. 1402,
1403 (J.P.M.L. 1975).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1407, the action listed on the following Schedule A
and pending in the Northern District of Illinois be,
and the same hereby is, transferred to the Eastern District Cof Pennsylvania and, with the consent of that court,
assigned to the Honorable Charles R. Weiner for coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions
already pending there and listed on Schedule A.
®

. = Case MDL No. 360 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 7 of 7
@- SCHEDULE A
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Philadelphia Electric Co. v. Rockwell CIVIL ACTION
International Corp., et al. NO. 78-488
Philadelphia Gas Works v. Rockwell CIVIL ACTION
International Corp., et al. NO. 78-631
Pennsylvania Gas and Water Co. v. CIVIL ACTION
Rockwell International Corp., et al. NO. 78-2094
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
The Peoples Gas Light and Coke Co., et al. CIVIL ACTION
v. Rockwell International Corp., et al. NO. 78C-3229