UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

HEMLOCK SEMICONDUTOR CORPORATION, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cv-11236 

v Honorable Thomas L. Ludington 

KYOCERA CORPORATION, 

 

 Defendant. 

__________________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES 

 On August 31, 2015, Defendant Kyocera Corporation filed a motion to consolidate this 

action and Hemlock v. Deutsche Solar GmbH., Case No. 13-cv-11037 (“Deutsche Solar”) under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) with respect to discovery, summary judgment, and trial on, 

at least, select affirmative defenses. ECF No. 35. Defendant then requests to bifurcate the action 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b), trying the select affirmative defenses first. 

ECF No. 35. Because consolidation at this juncture would lead to a high risk of confusion and 

possibly prejudice without conserving time or resources, and because there is little risk of 

inconsistent adjudications, Defendant’s motion will be denied. 

I. 

 Pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court may order 

consolidation of actions involving “a common question of law or fact....” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). 

The purpose of consolidation is to “administer the court’s business with expedition and economy 

while providing justice to the parties.” Advey v. Celotex, Corp., 962 F.2d 1177, 1180 (6th 

Cir.1992) (internal quotations omitted). In deciding whether to consolidate cases, Courts should 

thoughtfully consider 

1:15-cv-11236-TLL-PTM Doc # 47 Filed 10/09/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 1928
- 2 - 

[w]hether the specific risks of prejudice and possible confusion [are] overborne 

by the risk of inconsistent adjudications of common factual and legal issues, the 

burden on parties, witnesses and available judicial resources posed by multiple 

lawsuits, the length of time required to conclude multiple suits as against a single 

one, and the relative expense to all concerned of the single-trial, multiple-trial 

alternatives. 

Cantrell v. GAF Corp., 999 F.2d 1007, 1011 (6th Cir.1993) (internal citation and quotations 

marks omitted). Furthermore, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1, the Rules should be 

“construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 1. Where “individual issues predominate, consolidation should be denied.” Banacki v. 

OneWest Bank, FSB, 276 F.R.D. 567, 572 (E.D. Mich. 2011). 

 Here, granting Defendant’s request would increase the risks of prejudice and confusion 

without promoting efficiency. The fact that Defendant Kyocera and Deutsche Solar entered into 

similar contracts with Hemlock that were similarly affected by outside market forces does not in 

itself make the cases sufficiently similar to warrant docket consolidation at this time. As 

Plaintiff Hemlock emphasizes in its response, the cases contain a great deal of factual and legal 

differences. In addition to containing different parties, the substantive postures are different and 

the parties have sought different relief. 

First, the cases are factually distinct. Hemlock terminated its contract with Deutsche 

Solar over two years ago and now seeks damages. In contrast, the contract between Hemlock 

and Kyocera has not yet terminated. The circumstances leading to both the formation and the 

breakdown of the contractual relationships involved different negotiations and different 

timelines, and thus will likely require different discovery. 

The cases are also legally distinct. Kyocera and Deutsche Solar rely on different defense 

theories. Kyocera raises a number of defenses Deutsche Solar has not raised. Kyocera has also 

brought counterclaims against Hemlock that Deutsche Solar has not. Moreover, the cases are at 

1:15-cv-11236-TLL-PTM Doc # 47 Filed 10/09/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 1929
- 3 - 

completely different stages of litigation. Deutsche Solar was filed over two years ago on March 

7, 2013. See Pl.’s Compl., ECF No 1 in Case No. 13-11037. Discovery in that case closed on 

May 29, 2015. See May 7, 2015 Text Order in Case No. 13-11037. In contrast, the present 

matter was not filed until April 1, 2015. Discovery has just begun, and is not set to close until 

April 5, 2016. ECF No. 26. 

II. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant Kyocera Corporation’s Motion to 

Consolidate Cases, ECF No. 35, is DENIED. 

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

 THOMAS L. LUDINGTON 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: October 9, 2015 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served 

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first 

class U.S. mail on October 9, 2015. 

 s/Suzanne Gammon 

 SUZANNE GAMMON 

 Deputy Clerk 

1:15-cv-11236-TLL-PTM Doc # 47 Filed 10/09/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 1930