IN RE AIR CRASH NEAR DENVER, COLORADO ON OCTOBER 3, 1969

• Decision Date: 29 February 1972
• Docket Number: No. 88.,88.
• Citation: 339 F. Supp. 415
• Parties: In re AIR CRASH NEAR DENVER, COLORADO ON OCTOBER 3, 1969.
• Court: Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

339 F. Supp. 415

In re AIR CRASH NEAR DENVER, COLORADO ON OCTOBER 3, 1969.

No. 88.

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

February 29, 1972.

Before ALFRED P. MURRAH,^* Chairman, JOHN MINOR WISDOM, EDWARD WEINFELD,^* EDWIN A. ROBSON,^* WILLIAM H. BECKER, JOSEPH S. LORD, III and STANLEY A. WEIGEL, Judges of the Panel.

OPINION AND ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The crash of an airplane operated by Metro Commuter Airlines near Denver, Colorado in 1969 led to the filing of four actions in four districts by passengers and crew and their representatives. The United States, a common defendant, moves for the transfer of all cases to the District of Colorado for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. We find the actions appropriate for transfer to Colorado.

The United States has cited numerous decisions of the Panel transferring litigation arising out of airplane accidents for pretrial proceedings under Section 1407. See, e. g., In re Air Crash Disaster at Las Vegas, Nevada, 336 F. Supp. 414 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1971); In re Air Disaster at San Antonio, Venezuela, 331 F.Supp. 547 (Jud.Pan.Mult. Lit.1971); In re San Juan, Puerto Rico Air Crash Disaster, 316 F.Supp. 981 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1970); In re Mid-Air Collision near Fairland, Indiana, 309 F.Supp. 621 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1970). Several plaintiffs and defendant Beech Aircraft Corporation oppose transfer on the ground that voluntary coordination of discovery will eliminate any problems in this litigation. In addition, Beech, a defendant in only one of the California cases, asserts that it has filed a motion to dismiss in California and would find it prejudicially expensive to fly counsel to Colorado to participate in pretrial proceedings there.

We see no indication that voluntary coordination would be effective in these cases and we have previously stated "that Section 1407 was intended to provide a procedure which would insure that repetitious and duplicative discovery is avoided by providing that all related actions be assigned to a single judge." In re Frost Patent Litigation, 316 F.Supp. 977, 979 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. 1970). For the same reasons we must reject Beech's "worm's eye view" of the litigation. In re Library Editions of Childrens' Book Antitrust Litigation, 297 F.Supp. 385, 386 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. 1968).

Finally, two passenger plaintiffs suggest that their cases should not be transferred for pretrial proceedings with actions brought by representatives of two deceased crew members. While the two types of cases may raise different legal issues, they still share a common factual background which will result in duplicative discovery unless transferred to a single district for pretrial proceedings. In re Air Crash Disaster at Greater Cincinnati Airport, 295 F.Supp. 51 (Jud. Pan.Mult.Lit.1968).

No party has contested the choice of...