Haff Poultry, Inc. et al v. Koch Foods, Inc. et al

Filing 18

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER re: pldg. ( 25 in MDL No. 2838, 14 in NCE/7:18-cv-00031, 17 in OKE/6:17-cv-00033), ( 1 in MDL No. 2838) The motion to transfer, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1407, is DENIEDSigned by Judge Sarah S. Vance, Chair, PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION, on 6/6/2018. Associated Cases: MDL No. 2838, NCE/7:18-cv-00031, OKE/6:17-cv-00033 (LH)

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: BROILER CHICKEN GROWER
ANTITRUST LITIGATION

MDL No. 2838

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

Before the Panel: Plaintiffs in the two actions listed on Schedule A move under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in this litigation in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. This
litigation consists of two actions pending in the Eastern District of North Carolina and the Eastern
District of Oklahoma, as listed on Schedule A. Responding defendants1 support centralization in the
Eastern District of Oklahoma.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we conclude that centralization
is not necessary for the convenience of the parties and witnesses or to further the just and efficient
conduct of the litigation. Where only a minimal number of actions are involved, the proponent of
centralization bears a heavier burden to demonstrate that centralization is appropriate. See In re
Transocean Ltd. Sec. Litig. (No. II), 753 F. Supp. 2d 1373, 1374 (J.P.M.L. 2010). Plaintiffs have
not met that burden here.
There is no dispute that this litigation involves common factual questions relating to
allegations that defendants agreed not to compete for “Broiler Grow-Out Services,” i.e., the services
of farmers who raise broiler chickens under contracts with chicken processors such as defendants.
But there are only two actions before the Panel, brought by the same plaintiffs against different
defendants.2 In these circumstances, alternatives to centralization, such as informal cooperation
among the relatively few involved attorneys and coordination among the involved courts, are
eminently feasible and will be sufficient to minimize any potential for duplicative discovery or
inconsistent pretrial rulings. See, e.g., In re Eli Lilly & Co. (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent Litig.,
446 F. Supp. 242, 244 (J.P.M.L. 1978); see also Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth, § 20.14
(2004).

1

Responding defendants are Tyson Foods, Inc.; Tyson Chicken, Inc.; Tyson Breeders, Inc.;
Tyson Poultry, Inc.; Perdue Farms, Inc.; Koch Foods, Inc.; Koch Meat Co., Inc., d/b/a Koch Poultry
Co.; Sanderson Farms, Inc.; Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Food Division); Sanderson Farms, Inc.
(Processing Division); and Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Production Division).
2

Plaintiffs’ claims initially were brought in a single action in the Eastern District of
Oklahoma. The court dismissed two groups of defendants on personal jurisdiction and venue
grounds, resulting in the two actions now before the Panel.

-2IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for centralization of these actions is denied.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

__________________________________________
Sarah S. Vance
Chair
Marjorie O. Rendell
Lewis A. Kaplan
R. David Proctor

Charles R. Breyer
Ellen Segal Huvelle
Catherine D. Perry

IN RE: BROILER CHICKEN GROWER
ANTITRUST LITIGATION

SCHEDULE A

Eastern District of North Carolina
HAFF POULTRY, INC., ET AL. v. KOCH FOODS, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 7:18-00031
Eastern District of Oklahoma
HAFF POULTRY, INC., ET AL. v. TYSON FOODS, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 6:17-00033

MDL No. 2838