Court Opinion

ID: 9517476
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:18:11.9787+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:55.272651
License: Public Domain

WEIGEL, Judge of the Panel
(concurring) .
The record in this matter makes it clear that a very substantial amount of discovery in each case will be pertinent only to those cases brought in the same district. This accentuates the question as to whether transfer for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings will, in fact, “be for the convenience of parties and witnesses and will promote the just and efficient conduct of such actions.” *25428 U.S.C. § 1407. If we are to order transfer, the statute requires us to determine that the answer to that question, including each of its four elements, is in the affirmative.
The cases here involve non-pressure pipe for sewers and culverts. Because of the difficulty of transporting such pipe and because of the ease of entry into the industry, non-pressure pipe is sold in distinctly local markets by competitors with plants in those areas. Only two defendants, Interpace and Martin Marietta, sold such pipe throughout the area “East of the Rockies.” Martin Marietta had 67 plants in the area; Interpace, 36 permanent plants and 16 temporary ones. All the plaintiffs allege that these two defendants conspired to fix prices and to allocate markets throughout the region, and implemented their scheme through various local conspiracies.
Plainly, then, the cases do present some common questions of fact, i. e., those concerning region-wide industry conditions as well as concerning the existence and local effect of the alleged broad conspiracy between Interpace and Martin Marietta. Even so, much — probably most —of the pretrial discovery and proceedings will concern local witnesses, local records and local aspects of the alleged conspiracies. Such matters are best handled by the local United States District Courts.
If the statute required all pretrial proceedings to be conducted by the transferee court, then the case against ordering transfer would be compelling. However, it is manifest from the statute and its legislative history that the Panel may order remand to the transferor courts for local discovery. Subsection (a) of 28 U.S.C. § 1407 provides, in part, that “[e]ach action so transferred shall be remanded by the panel at or before the conclusion of such [joint] pretrial proceedings to the district from which it was transferred * * (Emphasis added.) The Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives observed with regard to subsection (a):
[I]n most cases there will be a need for local discovery proceedings to supplement coordinated discovery proceedings, and * * * consequently remand to the originating district for this purpose will be desirable.
H.R.Rep. No. 1130 90th Cong., 2d Sess. 4 (1968) U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1968, p. 1901.
This is not to say that the provisions for remand justify anything less than the most careful assessment of the pros and cons of transfer. The statutory objectives are not necessarily served by requiring joint pretrial whenever some— even many — questions of fact are common to a large number of cases. In some such cases, if not in these at hand, coordination and consolidation may impair, not further, convenience, justice and efficiency. To put it in other words, neither the convenience of witnesses and parties nor the just and efficient conduct of actions are served, ipso facto, by transfer just because there are common questions of fact in the civil actions involved.
There are a number of inherent inconveniences in transfers for coordinated or consolidated pretrial. Some plaintiffs are temporarily deprived of their choices of forum and some defendants may be forced to litigate in districts where they could not have been sued. Considerable time and trouble are involved in the sheer mechanics of transferring and remanding.1 After transfer, the process of segregating the pretrial matters which should be remanded for handling by the *255transferor courts may be time-consuming as well as subject to reasonable disagreement. Since remand must be by order of the Panel, the Panel may have to hold further hearings to resolve disagreements among the parties.
The basic question before the Panel in each proceeding looking to coordinated or consolidated pretrial is, then, whether the objectives of the statute are sufficiently served to justify the necessary inconveniences of transfer and remand. Many factors are relevant to the answer. Some will be applicable to all proceedings under the statute; some will not. Some will count heavily in some proceedings; lightly in others. It will be useful — for illustration, if nothing more— to articulate some of these considerations.
How many common questions of fact are there?2 What is their nature?3 How many cases are presently and prospectively involved?4 What is the geographical location of the districts in which the cases pend?5 If it is anticipated that further cases will be filed, in what districts ? 6 Who are the principal witnesses in the cases and where do they reside? What detriment, financial or otherwise, will be imposed upon any of the parties by ordering transfer ? 7 Will transfer result in a substantial saving of duplicative work?8 Will transfer usefully avoid conflicting rulings in the pretrial proceedings of the cases involved?9 Can many of the advantages of transfer be worked out by cooperation among counsel without transfer?10 Are pretrial proceedings already far along in any one or more of the cases ? 11 Will transfer hasten or delay progress in the cases ?12 What is the availability of a *256judge or judges in the proposed transferee court or courts? Will the advantages of transfer overcome the normal desirability of having the same judge who conducts the trial also conduct pretrial proceedings? Will transfer impede or promote the prospect of settlements? Will transfer serve any ulterior motive of any party or parties, such as forum-shopping? If class actions are involved, will transfer make for complexity or for simplification ? 13 Will transfer unjustly delay or deny any party’s right to provisional remedies such as injunctive relief? What is the status and possible effect of any appeals pending in any of the cases ?14 Will transfer operate to eliminate or avoid an undesirable multiplicity of appeals on similar issues ?
In evaluating such of the foregoing considerations as are relevant to this proceeding, the balance does seem very close to me. Notwithstanding the conceded common questions of fact and the anticipated advantages of joint pretrial, the countervailing considerations here are fairly strong. To begin with, there are the inherent inconveniences referred to above. In addition, the indications are that there will be genuine financial hardship upon a number of small defendants, that much of the saving of judicial time through transfer will be offset by the time required for segregation of local from common issues, and that the advantage of having all pretrial proceedings conducted by the trial judge will be lost in all transferred cases. Moreover, since a great number of the plaintiffs are represented by the same counsel, the opportunity exists for gaining many of the advantages of transfer through informal cooperation. However, I am not convinced that these factors weighing against consolidated or coordinated pretrial sufficiently tip the scale to require dissent from the decision of the Panel.

. In the proceeding at bar, for instance, a total of 24 cases must be transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania from five different district courts. The Manual for Clerks circulated by the Panel indicates that the most efficient procedure would be as follows: Upon receiving the Panel’s order of transfer, the clerk of the transferee court transmits a certified copy thereof to the clerks of the transferor courts. After receiving and filing this order, each transferor clerk makes an appropriate entry on the docket sheet of each affected case and then for*255wards to the transferee court the files, records, and a copy of the docket sheet of each transferred case.
The transferee clerk usually maintains a master docket sheet for all transferred eases, individual docket sheets for each such case and a complete combined pretrial file for each transferor court. Thereafter, copies of all motions, depositions, exhibits, and other pretrial papers are included in each combined district file. Notices, orders and pleadings must be served on all counsel for all parties, unless alternative arrangements can be agreed upon.
Motions for remand may be initiated by any party, the transferor or transferee courts or the Panel. Only the Panel has the power to order a remand. Hearings may be necessary. Orders of remands must be transmitted to each transferor court by the transferee court and appropriate entries must be made on all the aforementioned docket sheets. The individual case file, a docket sheet for each remanded case, a copy of the master docket sheet and the combined district file must then be transmitted back to the appropriate district court. If some but not all of the cases from a specific district are remanded, then copies of all subsequent motions, orders and other filings must be sent to the transferor court for inclusion in the combined district file.

. See In re Plumbing Fixture Cases, 295 F.Supp. 33 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1968).

. See In re Air Crash Disaster at Greater Cincinnati Airport (American Airlines), 295 F.Supp. 51 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1968).

. See In re Scotch Whiskey Antitrust Litigation, 299 F.Supp. 543 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1969).

. See In re Library Editions of Children’s Books, 297 F.Supp. 385 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1968).

. See In re Air Crash Disaster at Greater Cincinnati Airport (TWA), 298 F.Supp. 353 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1968).

. See In re Library Editions of Children’s Books, supra.

. See In re Gypsum Wallboard Antitrust Cases (Roundy v. Kaiser Gypsum), 303 F.Supp. 510 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1969).

. See In re Fourth Class Postage Regulations, 298 F.Supp. 1326 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1969).

. See In re Scotch Whiskey Antitrust Litigation, supra.

. See In re Protection Devices and Equipment and Central Station Protection Service Antitrust Cases, 295 F.Supp. 39 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1968).

. See In re Air Crash Disaster at Falls City, Neb. on Aug. 6, 1966, 298 F.Supp. 1323 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1969).

. See In re Plumbing Fixture Cases, 298 F.Supp. 484 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. Dec. 27, 1968).

. See In re Mid-Air Collision Near Hendersonville Northern Carolina on July 19, 1967, 297 F.Supp. 1039 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1969).