IN RE MULTI-PIECE RIM PRODUCTS, ETC.
| Decision Date | 18 January 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 362.,362. |
| Citation | 464 F. Supp. 969 |
| Parties | In re MULTI-PIECE RIM PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. |
| Court | Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation |
Before JOHN MINOR WISDOM, Chairman, and EDWARD WEINFELD*, EDWIN A. ROBSON*, STANLEY A. WEIGEL, ANDREW A. CAFFREY*, ROY W. HARPER, and CHARLES R. WEINER, Judges of the Panel.
Before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
This litigation consists of nineteen actions pending in fourteen federal districts. The distribution of these actions is as follows:
Western District of Missouri 4
Northern District of Alabama 2
Eastern District of Michigan 2
Western District of Kentucky 1
District of Maryland 1
District of Massachusetts 1
Southern District of Mississippi 1
District of Nevada 1
District of New Hampshire 1
District of Oregon 1
Western District of Tennessee 1
Northern District of Texas 1
Southern District of Texas 1
Southern District of West Virginia 1
These actions have all been brought to recover compensation for personal injuries or wrongful death allegedly resulting from, among other causes, the failure and separation of a multi-piece truck wheel (rim and tire assembly). The complaints in eighteen of these actions allege that a multi-piece rim assembly separated under pressure and flew apart with explosive force during tire inflation, mounting of an inflated wheel on a vehicle, or removal of an inflated wheel from a vehicle. Plaintiffs or plaintiffs' decedents in these eighteen actions were individuals who were in the proximity of the wheel when it separated, either as service persons or bystanders. The complaint in the nineteenth action (the Oregon action) alleges that a multi-piece rim assembly separated during operation of the vehicle on which the rim was being used, causing the vehicle to go out of control and strike an oncoming vehicle containing plaintiff and plaintiff's decedent. In each action, one or more of the following four manufacturers of multi-piece rim components are named as defendants: Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. (fourteen actions), Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. (eight actions), Kelsey-Hayes Co. (three actions) and Redco Corp. (one action). Either Firestone or Goodyear is a defendant in every action. Besides the four manufacturers of multi-piece rim components, 21 other defendants are named in these actions, nineteen of which are named in only one action and two of which are named in two actions. These additional defendants include, in specific actions, the manufacturer of the tire which was included in the wheel assembly; the employers of plaintiff or plaintiff's decedent; and the manufacturers and/or owners of the vehicle on which the wheel was located.1
Plaintiffs allege a number of theories of relief against the various defendants in these actions. The allegations against the manufacturers of multi-piece rim components generally concern defects in the design and manufacture of multi-piece rim components and failure to warn adequately of the risks involved with multi-piece rim assemblies. All parties agree that in some instances multi-piece rim components manufactured by different defendants can be used interchangeably.
In addition, the complaints in three of the Missouri actions (Hale, Goodwin and Butler) allege that Firestone and/or Goodyear 1) failed to advise the United States Department of Transportation of the hazards associated with use of multi-piece rims and intentionally minimized the frequency and severity of personal injuries caused by multi-piece rims in testimony before the Department of Transportation; 2) withheld information from and gave misinformation to the Department of Transportation concerning the feasibility of a recall and retrofit of multi-piece rims; 3) maintained a political slush fund to make illegal payments for the purpose of avoiding a recall of multi-piece rims; and 4) conspired with other manufacturers to withhold the dissemination of adequate safety warnings concerning multi-piece rims.
The Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407(c)(i) and Rule 8, R.P.J.P.M.L., 78 F.R.D. 561, 566-67 (1978), ordered the parties to show cause why eighteen of these nineteen actions should not be transferred to a single district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.2 Plaintiffs in eleven actions (including plaintiffs in the three Missouri actions containing the additional allegations against Firestone and/or Goodyear) favor transfer. Plaintiffs in ten of these actions favor selection of the Western District of Missouri as the transferee forum. Plaintiff in the eleventh action has expressed no view on that issue. Plaintiffs in five actions and all defendants except one (which has not responded) oppose transfer. Plaintiffs in the other three actions have not responded. In the event transfer is ordered, Goodyear favors selection of the Northern District of Ohio as the transferee forum. In the event transfer is ordered, several opponents also request either that actions in which they are involved be excluded from transfer because pretrial proceedings in these actions are well advanced or that the claims against them be excluded from transfer because those claims are unrelated to the common factual issues involved in this litigation.
We find that these actions involve common questions of fact and that, with the exception of the Oregon and Mississippi actions, their transfer to the Western District of Missouri under Section 1407 for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.3
Opponents present the following primary arguments in opposition to transfer in this litigation:
1) The questions of fact involved in each action are primarily individual.
a) A diversity of multi-piece rim components produced by a diversity of manufacturers is involved. The design of these rim components, the interlocking mechanisms and the mounting and demounting procedures for the rims vary.
b) A diversity of parties is involved as plaintiffs and defendants. The factual situation with respect to most parties is individual to a single action.
c) The circumstances surrounding each accident primarily involve factual variables unique to that accident.
2) The factual aspects that may be shared by these actions with respect to the design and manufacture of multi-piece rim components are minimal in comparison to the unique issues involved in each action.
3) Discovery is progressing well in most of these actions, some of which have been pending for a long time, are well advanced in discovery, and are nearing readiness for trial. Transfer would merely delay pretrial and trial proceedings in these well advanced actions.
On the other hand, proponents of transfer maintain that all multi-piece rims are essentially the same, for purposes of this litigation, because they all operate on the same engineering principle of maintaining a delicate equilibrium among the multi-piece rim components in order to keep the rim components from separating and flying apart under inflation pressure. Proponents assert that the sources of discovery common to all actions include engineers familiar with multi-piece rim design, as well as documents and witnesses from the national trade association of tire and rim manufacturers. Several plaintiffs also contend that Firestone and Goodyear exchanged information concerning whether to distribute certain warning labels for use with multi-piece rims. In addition, several plaintiffs argue that defendants have concertedly suppressed evidence concerning the risks associated with the use of multi-piece rims.
We are persuaded that centralized pretrial proceedings under Section 1407 are appropriate in this litigation. We recognize that certain individual factual issues will be present in each action. Nevertheless, we are convinced that substantial common factual issues are present concerning the overall design of multi-piece rims, the state of knowledge within the industry of the risks involved with use of multi-piece rims, and the alleged failure of defendants to warn adequately of those risks. Centralization pursuant to Section 1407 is necessary in order to prevent duplication of discovery and eliminate the possibility of conflicting pretrial rulings concerning these common factual issues. See In re The Upjohn Co. Antibiotic "Cleocin" Products Liability Litigation, 450 F.Supp. 1168, 1170 (Jud.Pan. Mult.Lit.1978).
The transferee judge, of course, has the authority to group the pretrial proceedings on different discovery tracks according to the common factual issues or according to each defendant if necessary for the just and efficient conduct of the litigation, and to schedule any discovery unique to particular parties, actions or claims to proceed in separate discovery tracks concurrently with the common discovery, thus enhancing the efficient processing of all aspects of the litigation. See id. Moreover, no party need participate in pretrial proceedings unrelated to that party's interests. See, e. g., Parts I and II, §§ 2.31, Manual for Complex Litigation, (rev. ed. 1977).
On the basis of the record before us, it appears that discovery has been completed in the Mississippi action and that discovery on all common factual issues in this docket has been completed in the Oregon action. Accordingly, transfer of these actions would not now be appropriate and they will therefore be excluded from our transfer order. See In re The Upjohn Co. Antibiotic "Cleocin" Products Liability Litigation, supra, 450 F.Supp. at 1170. Some parties have argued that additional actions are also sufficiently advanced to warrant their exclusion from transfer.4 We...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re TMJ Implants Products Liability Litigation, 94-MD-1001.
...judge may suggest to the Panel that the Panel remand the action or claim to its transferor district. In re Multi-Piece Rim Prod. Liab. Lit., 464 F.Supp. 969, 975 (J.P.M.L.1979). Having considered the arguments of Plaintiff Fuller, the arguments of the Duke Defendants, and the claims of the ......
-
Pharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust Litig. Brady Enters., Inc. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc.
...to any non-common issues to proceed concurrently with pretrial proceedings on common issues, In re Multi-Piece Rim Products Liability Litigation, 464 F.Supp. 969, 974 (J.P.M.L. 1979); and 2) ensures that pretrial proceedings will be conducted in a manner leading to the just and expeditious ......
-
First Tranche ActionsGarcia v. Wachovia Bank, N.A. (In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig.)
...respect to any non-common issues to proceed concurrently with pretrial proceedings on common issues, In re Multi–Piece Rim Products Liability Litigation, 464 F.Supp. 969, 974 (J.P.M.L.1979); and (2) ensures that pretrial proceedings will be conducted in a streamlined manner leading to the j......
-
In re Managed Care Litigation
...to any non-common issues to proceed concurrently with pretrial proceedings on common issues, In re Multi-Piece Rim Products Liability Litigation, 464 F.Supp. 969, 974 (Jud. Pan.Mult.Lit.1979); and 2) ensures that pretrial proceedings will be conducted in a manner leading to the just and exp......
-
RSI defendants fight for due process: "mass torts" needn't always be massive.
...Accord Tucker v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 73 F.R.D. 316 (S.D. N.Y. 1976). (6.) See, e.g., In re Multipiece Rim Prod. Liab. Litig., 464 F.Supp. 969 (J.P.M.L. 1979) (consolidating and centralizing 19 cases involving one defective product and four manufacturers); In re Upjohn Co. Antibiotic ......