IN RE: Celotex Corp. "Technifoam" Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 210

Plaintiffs (Wallison) own a New York home and allege interior walls contain Celotex "Technifoam" boards and ceilings contain a two-part polyurethane foam manufactured by defendants (Witco/Upjohn/unknown).
Plaintiffs assert diminution of value and uninhabitability due to fire/flammability characteristics; claims include strict liability, negligence, breach of warranty, and fraudulent misrepresentation.
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) had previously centralized related Technifoam actions in the District of Minnesota under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and assigned them to Judge Weiner.
The JPML conditionally transferred Wallison to the District of Minnesota for coordinated pretrial proceedings; plaintiffs support transfer; Upjohn and Witco oppose and moved to vacate.
Upjohn and Witco argued Wallison differs because it involves multiple manufacturers and products (two-part foam) with local witnesses/documents in New York, creating hardship if transferred.
The Panel concluded Wallison shares common factual questions—especially concerning Celotex—and transfer is necessary to avoid duplicative discovery and inconsistent rulings; unique issues can be managed by the transferee judge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Wallison should be transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1407	Transfer promotes coordinated pretrial proceedings and prevents duplication	Transfer imposes undue hardship; Wallison involves different products/defendants and local witnesses in NY	Transfer ordered; common issues with Celotex justify § 1407 consolidation
Whether presence of unique parties/issues defeats transfer	Unique issues can be managed by transferee judge; discovery can be limited for unrelated parties	Unique parties and unrelated product liability distinguish Wallison from MDL actions	Uniqueness is not an obstacle; transferee has discretion to handle common and unique issues concurrently
Whether transfer will cause undue burden on non-transferee parties	Use of lead/liaison counsel, local depositions, and document depositories limits burdens	Travel and document/witness location in NY would be costly	Transfer need not cause undue burden; measures exist (local depositions, depositories, counsel coordination) to mitigate expense
Whether transfer eliminates duplicative discovery re: industry-wide testing orgs	Wallison involves industry-wide technical assistance common to multiple defendants	Opponents did not dispute common industry issues but emphasized local aspects	Transfer will eliminate duplicative discovery about industry organizations and common issues

In re Celotex Corporation "Technifoam" Products Liability Litigation, 68 F.R.D. 502 (J.P.M.L. 1975) (prior centralization of Technifoam cases in Minnesota)
In re Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust Litigation, 388 F. Supp. 565 (J.P.M.L. 1975) (presence of unique parties/issues does not preclude MDL transfer)
In re Republic National-Realty Equities Securities Litigation, 382 F. Supp. 1403 (J.P.M.L. 1974) (transferee judge has broad discretion to design pretrial discovery)
In re Stirling Homex Corporation Securities Litigation, 405 F. Supp. 314 (J.P.M.L. 1975) (depositions may be taken where witnesses reside despite transfer)