Before the Panel :* Plaintiff in one action in the Western District of Pennsylvania moves under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize this litigation in that district or, alternatively, the Southern District of New York or the Northern District of Alabama. This litigation currently consists of three actions pending in three districts, as listed on Schedule A. Since the filing of the motion, the Panel has been notified of nine additional related federal actions.1
All responding parties support, or do not oppose, centralization, but request different transferee districts. Nine defendants2 support centralization in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania or, alternatively, the Western District of Pennsylvania, and one - the Lanxess Corporation - takes no position. Plaintiffs variously propose the Northern District of Alabama, the Eastern District of Michigan, the District of New Jersey, the Southern District of New York, the Eastern and Western Districts of Pennsylvania, and the District of Kansas, as their first or second choice.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we find that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. All actions share complex factual questions arising from allegations that defendants engaged in a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) and toluene diisocyanate (TDI)3 sold in the United States, from early 2015 or 2016 through the present, including through agreements to limit supply of MDI and TDI through planned manufacturing shutdowns at plants worldwide and implementing coordinated price increases. The record indicates that discovery is likely to be international in scope and will include a *1378significant number of nonparties. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, especially with respect to class certification and Daubert motions; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.
We conclude that the Western District of Pennsylvania is an appropriate transferee forum. One defendant has its U.S. headquarters in this district, and five other defendants have their headquarters in adjacent or nearby districts. Relevant documents and witnesses therefore are likely to be located in or close to this area. Nearly all responding defendants agree that the Western District of Pennsylvania is an appropriate venue, along with plaintiffs in one action on the motion and one potential tag-along action. Judge Donetta W. Ambrose is an experienced transferee judge with the ability and willingness to manage this litigation efficiently. We are confident she will steer this matter on a prudent course.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside the Western District of Pennsylvania are transferred to the Western District of Pennsylvania and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Donetta W. Ambrose for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
SCHEDULE A
MDL No. 2862 - IN RE: DIISOCYANATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION
Eastern District of Michigan
ISAAC INDUSTRIES, INC. V. BASF CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:18-12089
District of New Jersey
C.U.E., INC. v. BASF AG, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:18-11439
Western District of Pennsylvania
UTAH FOAM PRODUCTS, INC v. BAYER A.G., ET AL., 2:18-00858