Opinion
C.A. No. 2:01-325, Docket No. 1403.
April 8, 2002
BEFORE WM. TERRELL HODGES, CHAIRMAN, JOHN F. KEENAN, MOREY L. SEAR, BRUCE M. SELYA, JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, D. LOWELL JENSEN AND J. FREDERICK MOTZ, JUDGES OF THE PANEL
TRANSFER ORDER
Presently before the Panel is a motion, pursuant to Rule 7.4, R.P.J.P.M.L., 199 F.R.D. 425, 435-36 (2001), by the plaintiff in this action ( AgriFarm) to vacate the Panel's order conditionally transferring the action to the Northern District of Illinois for inclusion in the Section 1407 proceedings occurring there in this docket. Defendants favor inclusion of AgriFarm in Section 1407 proceedings.
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that AgriFarm involves common questions of fact with the actions in this litigation previously transferred to the Northern District of Illinois, and that transfer of this action to that district for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings occurring there will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. The Panel further finds that transfer is appropriate for reasons expressed by the Panel in its original order directing centralization in this docket. The Panel held that the Northern District of Illinois was the proper Section 1407 forum for actions involving the improper commingling of StarLink™ with non-StarLink™ corn. See In re StarLink Corn Products Liability Litigation, 152 F. Supp.2d 1378 (J.P.M.L. 2001).
Plaintiffs objections to Section 1407 transfer are based primarily on the grounds that i) AgriFarm does not share sufficient questions of fact with previously centralized actions to warrant inclusion in Section 1407 proceedings, and ii) inclusion of AgriFarm in Section 1407 proceedings would be inconvenient for them. We disagree. We point out that transfer under Section 1407 has the salutary effect of placing all actions in this docket before a single judge who can formulate a pretrial program that: 1) allows discovery with respect to any non-common issues to proceed concurrently with discovery on common issues, In re Joseph F. Smith Patent Litigation, 407 F. Supp. 1403, 1404 (J.P.M.L. 1976); and 2) ensures that pretrial proceedings will be conducted in a manner leading to the just and expeditious resolution of all actions to the overall benefit of the parties. We observe that since Section 1407 transfer is for pretrial proceedings only, there is usually no need for the parties and witnesses to travel to the transferee district for depositions or otherwise. See, e.g., Fed, R.Civ.P. 45(c). Furthermore, the judicious use of liaison counsel, lead counsel and committees of counsel will eliminate the need for most counsel ever to travel to the transferee district. See Manual for Complex Litigation, Third, § 20.22 (1995). And it is most logical to assume that prudent counsel will combine their forces and apportion their workload in order to streamline the efforts of the parties and witnesses, their counsel and the judiciary, thereby effectuating an overall savings of cost and a minimum of inconvenience to all concerned. See In re Nissan Motor Corporation Antitrust Litigation, 385 F. Supp. 1253, 1255 (J.P.M.L. 1974).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, AgriFarm Industries, LLC v. Aventis CropScience USA Holding, Inc., et al., N.D. Texas, C.A. No. 2:01-325, is transferred to the Northern District of Illinois and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable James B. Moran for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings occurring there in this docket.