In re Wirebound Boxes Antitrust Litigation

128 F.R.D. 250, 1989 WL 128378
CourtDistrict Court, D. Minnesota
DecidedJanuary 5, 1989
DocketNo. MDL-793
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 128 F.R.D. 250 (In re Wirebound Boxes Antitrust Litigation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Wirebound Boxes Antitrust Litigation, 128 F.R.D. 250, 1989 WL 128378 (mnd 1989).

Opinion

MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 1

DIANA E. MURPHY, District Judge.

A number of cases have been assigned to this court for coordinated or consolidated pretrial purposes. Schedule A, attached hereto, lists the cases transferred pursuant to the November 29, 1988 order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, as well the related actions originally filed in this court. The last of the files in the three transferred cases was received on January 3, 1989. In the meantime some communications have been received from counsel for parties.

Several motions appear to be pending, and a hearing on some was previously scheduled for January 13, 1989. Requests have been received to set the initial pretrial conference, and two proposed procedural orders have been submitted, as well as a letter related to a proposed settlement.

The court has reviewed the panel’s order and the available files and communications, and it is apparent that organizational steps should be taken so that the litigation may proceed. Accordingly, based on the above and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. This order shall govern the practice and procedure in those actions transferred to this court by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation pursuant to their order of November 29, 1988 as well as all related actions originally filed in this court or transferred or removed to this court. These actions are listed in Schedule A attached hereto. This order shall also apply to related cases later filed in, removed to, or transferred to this court. This order does not have the effect of making any entity a party to an action in which it has [252]*252not been joined and served in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

2. The clerk shall maintain a master docket and case file under the style “In re Wirebound Boxes Antitrust Litigation,” master file number MDL-793. All orders, pleadings, motions, and other documents will, when filed and docketed in the master case file, be deemed filed and docketed in each individual case to the extent applicable.

3. Counsel for defendants shall call to the attention of the court, plaintiffs’ counsel, and clerk of court each subsequently filed or transferred action which relates to the subject matter of the within action.

4. Every pleading in these proceedings shall bear the following caption:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

FOURTH DIVISION

In re Wirebound Boxes Antitrust Litigation

Master File No. MDL-793

This document relates to:

5. When a pleading is intended to be applicable to all actions to which this order is applicable, the words “All Cases” shall appear immediately after the words “This document relates to:” in the caption set out above. When a pleading is intended to be applicable to some, but not all, of such actions, this court’s docket number for each individual action to which the paper is intended to be applicable and the last name of the named plaintiff in said action shall appear immediately after the words “This document relates to:” in the caption described above, e.g., “Civ. 4-88-771(TCI).”

6. When a paper is filed and the caption, pursuant to paragraph 5 above, shows that it is to be applicable to “All Cases,” the clerk shall file such paper in the master file and note such filing in the master docket. No further papers need be filed or docket entries made.

When a paper is filed and the caption, pursuant to paragraph 5 above, shows that it is to be applicable to less than all of these consolidated actions, the clerk shall file a copy of such paper in the master file and a copy in the file of each specific action to which the paper is intended to be applicable, and shall note such filing in the master docket and in the docket of each such action. It shall be the responsibility of the party filing such paper to supply the clerk with sufficient copies of any such paper to facilitate his compliance with the directions of this paragraph.

7. All pretrial orders issued in these coordinated proceedings shall be numbered consecutively. Any reference to an order of this court in any document filed with the court shall include the proper number of the order.

8. The Local Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota shall govern all further proceedings in this litigation except as modified herein or by further order of this court.

9. No parties to any of these actions shall be required to obtain local counsel in this district, and the portion of Rule 1(D) of the Local Rules of this court requiring association with an active Minnesota resident member of the bar of this court is waived as to any attorney appearing in these actions who is duly admitted to practice before any United States district court. This provision is designed to accommodate the parties and counsel, but it may be changed or eliminated if difficulties materialize in communication or cooperation with the court or counsel.

10. The parties herein, and all subsequent parties with notice of this order, shall preserve all documents and other records containing information relevant to the subject matter of this litigation. Subject to further order of the court, parties may continue routine erasures of computerized data pursuant to existing programs, but they shall (1) immediately notify opposing counsel about such programs and (2) preserve any printouts of such data. Requests for relief from this order will receive prompt attention from the court.

[253]*25311. The motion of plaintiff TCI, Inc. to certify its class action and the motions of defendant Martin Bros. Container & Timber Products Corp. to dismiss were scheduled for hearing on January 13, 1989. Since the immediate need in these cases is to have an organizational meeting, the hearings on these motions will be continued, and all other motions filed or scheduled in these coordinated and consolidated proceedings will be continued and temporarily stayed.

12. Any orders previously entered in these cases, including protective orders, shall remain in full force and effect unless modified by this court upon application.

13. All discovery proceedings in these actions are stayed until further order of this court. The time requirements to perform any acts or file any papers pursuant to Rules 26 through 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are tolled until the first pretrial conference, after which a discovery schedule will be established. This directive does not preclude informal discovery regarding the identification and location of relevant documents and witnesses.

14. The court will be guided by the Manual for Complex Litigation, Second, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States, and counsel are expected to be knowledgeable about that publication.

15. Vance K. Opperman, Esq., is appointed as interim lead counsel for the plaintiff class and Wayne G. Faris, Esq., is appointed as interim liaison counsel for the defendants in these consolidated and coordinated pretrial proceedings. Their addresses are provided on Schedule B, attached hereto.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Pueblo of Laguna v. United States
60 Fed. Cl. 133 (Federal Claims, 2004)
In re Wirebound Boxes Antitrust Litigation
128 F.R.D. 256 (D. Minnesota, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
128 F.R.D. 250, 1989 WL 128378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-wirebound-boxes-antitrust-litigation-mnd-1989.