Garcia et al v. Intel Corporation

Filing 36

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE.The actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside the District of Oregon are transferred to the District of Oregon, and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Michael H. Simon for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. (cv, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/6/2018) Modified on 4/6/2018 (cv, COURT STAFF).

04/05/2018

3

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: INTEL CORP. CPU MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION

MDL No. 2828

TRANSFER ORDER
Before the Panel:* Plaintiffs in two Northern District of California actions move under 28
U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize this litigation in the Northern District of California. This litigation
consists of five actions pending in four districts, as listed on Schedule A.1 Plaintiffs in twenty
actions and potential tag-along actions support the motion. Plaintiffs in eight of these potential tagalong actions and one additional potential tag-along action support centralization in the District of
Oregon, as does defendant Intel Corporation. Plaintiffs in three potential tag-along actions suggest
centralization in the Eastern District of New York.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held, we find that centralization under Section
1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. All responding parties agree that the actions share factual issues arising
out of allegations that Intel manufactured its computer processors to use “speculative execution”
technology, which left the processors exposed to security vulnerabilities known as “Spectre” and
“Meltdown,” and that the fix for this problem can considerably slow the processors’ speed.
Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on class
certification and other issues, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the
judiciary.
We find that centralization in the District of Oregon is appropriate. Defendant Intel and
plaintiffs in at least nine related actions support centralization in that district. Intel has extensive
operations there, including its employees who evaluated the security vulnerabilities and developed
patches to mitigate them, as well as the team that led the development of the first Intel processor to

*

Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle and Judge Lewis A. Kaplan took no part in the disposition of
this matter. Additionally, one or more Panel members who could be members of the putative classes
in this litigation have renounced their participation in these classes and have participated in this
decision.
1

The Panel also has been notified of 30 potentially-related actions pending in seven districts.
These and any other related actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules 1.1(h), 7.1, and
7.2.

Case 3:18-md-02828-SI

Document 1

Filed 04/05/18

Page 2 of 3

-2use speculative execution. It is likely, therefore, that relevant evidence and witnesses will be located
in this district. Judge Michael H. Simon, located in Portland, is an experienced transferee judge who
can steer this litigation on a prudent course.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside
the District of Oregon are transferred to the District of Oregon, and, with the consent of that court,
assigned to the Honorable Michael H. Simon for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Sarah S. Vance
Chair
Marjorie O. Rendell
R. David Proctor

Charles R. Breyer
Catherine D. Perry

Case 3:18-md-02828-SI

Document 1

Filed 04/05/18

Page 3 of 3

IN RE: INTEL CORP. CPU MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION
SCHEDULE A
Northern District of California
GARCIA, ET AL. v. INTEL CORPORATION, C.A. No. 5:18-00046
REIS, ET AL. v. INTEL CORPORATION, C.A. No. 5:18-00074
Southern District of Indiana
JONES v. INTEL CORPORATION, C.A. No. 1:18-00029
Eastern District of New York
STERN v. INTEL CORPORATION, C.A. No. 1:18-00065
District of Oregon
MANN v. INTEL CORPORATION, C.A. No. 6:18-00028

MDL No. 2828