Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 1151 Filed 04/08/16 Page 1 of 32
`
`
`Joseph R. Saveri (State Bar No. 130064)
`Andrew M. Purdy (State Bar No. 261912)
`Matthew S. Weiler (State Bar No. 236052)
`James G. Dallal (State Bar No. 277826)
`Ryan J. McEwan (State Bar No. 285595)
`JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
`555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210
`San Francisco, California 94111
`Telephone:
`(415) 500-6800
`Facsimile:
`(415) 395-9940
`E-mails:
`
`jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
`apurdy@saverilawfirm.com
`mweiler@saverilawfirm.com
`jdallal@saverilawfirm.com
`rmcewan@saverilawfirm.com
`
`
`Interim Lead Counsel for Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs
`
`Joseph W. Cotchett (State Bar No. 36324)
`Steven N. Williams (State Bar No. 175489)
`Adam J. Zapala (State Bar No. 245748)
`Elizabeth Tran (State Bar No. 280502)
`COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
`840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
`Burlingame, CA 94010
`Telephone: (650) 697-6000
`Facsimile:
`(650) 697-0577
`E-mails:
`jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
`
`swilliams@cpmlegal.com
`
`azapala@cpmlegal.com
`
`etran@cpmlegal.com
`
`Interim Lead Counsel for Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs
`
`[Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page]
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`IN RE CAPACITORS ANTITRUST
`LITIGATION
`
`
`THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ALL
`ACTIONS
`
`
`
`Master File No.: 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`
`JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE
`STATEMENT
`
`Date:
`Time:
`Place:
`Judge:
`
`April 15, 2016
`10:00 a.m.
`Courtroom 11, 19th Floor
`Hon. James Donato
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT – MASTER FILE NO.: 3:14-CV-03264-JD
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 1151 Filed 04/08/16 Page 2 of 32
`
`
`
`In advance of the Case Status Conference set by the Court for Friday, April 15, 2016, at 10:00
`a.m., Defendants,1 Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (“DPPs”), Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs (“IPPs”), and
`
`Flextronics International USA, Inc. (“Flextronics”) and, together with DPPs, and IPPs, the
`
`“Plaintiffs”), hereby submit this Joint Status Conference Statement.
`I.
`A.
`
`Defendants’ FTAIA Motions for Summary Judgment
`
`DEVELOPMENTS SINCE THE PARTIES’ LAST STATUS CONFERENCE
`
`On November 23, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their opposition briefs (Dkts. 965, 966, 967, 968, 969,
`
`970, 973, 974, 981), and on December 18, 2015, Defendants filed their reply briefs (Dkts. 983, 985,
`
`987, 989, 992). Plaintiffs claimed that Defendants’ motions raised a host of factual issues that
`
`required extensive analysis of the discovery record in general and Defendants’ transactional sales in
`
`particular and, further, required 30(b)(6) depositions regarding Defendant’s submissions. On the
`
`other hand, Defendants asserted that all material, factual issues and discovery disputes were resolved.
`
` After the previous Status Conference, on January 13, 2016, the Court issued an Order (Dkt.
`
`1032) requiring the parties to hold an in-person meet and confer regarding any discovery disputes
`
`related to Defendants’ Motions for Partial Summary Judgment to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Claims Based on
`
`Foreign Sales (“FTAIA Motions”) (Dkts. 910, 911, 912, 914, 915, 916, 984, 986). Plaintiffs believe
`
`that addressing those issues required substantial effort and prioritization, diverting resources, in
`
`particular the efforts of experts and consultants analyzing sales data, from other projects in the case.
`
`On January 22, 2016, the parties held an in-person meet and confer to discuss all discovery
`
`disputes underlying the FTAIA Motions. Additional discussions occurred subsequently between
`
`Plaintiffs and certain Defendants.
`
`On February 11, 2016, the Court issued an Order (Dkt. 1066) with deadlines for the parties to
`
`submit a document relating to the status of the parties’ discovery disputes regarding to the FTAIA
`
`
`
`1 In keeping with the Court’s expressed preference for attendance by lead counsel at status
`conferences in the October 30, 2014 Minute Order, lead counsel for the undersigned Defendants are
`making every effort to attend the status conference in person. Lead counsel for Panasonic/Sanyo,
`Hitachi, Elna, Rohm, AVX and the Nichicon Defendants will be unable to attend the conference due
`to pre-existing obligations; these Defendants will be represented at the hearing by other of their
`counsel of record who will be fully prepared to address any issues that arise.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT – MASTER FILE NO.: 3:14-CV-03264-JD
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 1151 Filed 04/08/16 Page 3 of 32
`
`
`Motions and to submit stipulated answers to the Court’s January 12, 2016 questions regarding the
`
`FTAIA Motions (Dkt. 1013).
`
`On February 17, 2016, the parties filed a Joint Statement Regarding Status of Appendix C
`
`(Dkt. 1076), which set forth that status of discovery disputes underlying the FTAIA Motions in a
`
`Revised Appendix C (Dkt. 998-4) as well as the parties’ positions on certain of Plaintiffs’ objections
`
`to evidence submitted by Defendants in connection with the FTAIA Motions.
`
`On March 3, 2016, the parties filed a Joint Statement Regarding Responses to the Court’s
`
`FTAIA Questions (Dkt. 1098) containing responses to the Court’s questions about the FTAIA
`
`Motions (Dkt. 1013).
`
`On March 10, 2016, the parties filed an Amended Joint Statement Regarding Responses to the
`
`Court's FTAIA Questions (Dkt. No. 1101) reflecting modified statements from Flextronics regarding
`
`questions 1d, Footnote 1, 5a and 5b.
`B.
`
`Nissei Electric Co., Ltd.’s Motion to Dismiss and Related Discovery
`
`In accordance with the parties’ stipulation and the Court’s order setting a modified schedule
`
`for discovery and briefing on Nissei’s personal jurisdiction motion to dismiss (Dkt. 988), on
`
`December 21, 2015, Plaintiffs served Nissei with discovery relevant to its jurisdictional motion. Nissei
`
`responded to Plaintiffs’ discovery on February 1, 2016. Thereafter, the parties disputed the
`
`sufficiency of Nissei’s discovery responses and productions, and on February 16, 2016, Plaintiffs filed
`
`a discovery letter brief to bring this dispute to the Court for resolution. Dkt. 1071. On February 17,
`
`2016, Nissei filed a letter brief in response. Dkt. 1074.
`
`On March 7, 2016, the Court held a discovery hearing. The Court overruled Nissei’s
`
`objections to responding to discovery related to successor liability issues and ordered the parties to
`
`stipulate to a schedule for jurisdictional discovery and briefing on Nissei’s motion to dismiss. Dkt.
`
`1099. The Court entered as an Order the parties’ scheduling stipulation. Dkt. 1107. Nissei
`
`supplemented its prior discovery responses on March 31, 2016. Plaintiffs will file their opposition to
`
`Nissei’s Motion by April 15, 2016. Nissei will file its reply by April 29.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT – MASTER FILE NO.: 3:14-CV-03264-JD
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 1151 Filed 04/08/16 Page 4 of 32
`
`
`
`C.
`
`KEMET’s Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`On March 30, 2016, the KEMET Defendants filed an administrative motion to file under seal
`
`portions of its motion for summary judgment against both DPPs’ and Flextronics’ respective claims.
`
`Dkts. 1120, 1124 (redacted). On April 1, 2016, DPPs met and conferred with the KEMET Defendants
`
`regarding a process and schedule to complete the relevant discovery and briefing. The KEMET
`
`Defendants have agreed in principle to a schedule according to which they will provide DPPs
`
`discovery relevant to the motion by the end of July 2016, and they will file their opposition papers at
`
`the end of August 2016. DPPs have agreed in principle to the KEMET Defendants filing their reply
`
`60 days thereafter, with hearing on the summary judgment motion to be held at the Court’s
`
`convenience. The KEMET Defendants and DPPs expect that they will submit a stipulated proposed
`
`order to the Court prior to the upcoming case management conference.
`D.
`
`Discovery Disputes Since the Last Status Conference
`
`On January 13, 2016, the Court issued an Order (Dkt. 1032) reciting what was discussed
`
`during the January 13, 2016 Status Conference regarding the location of depositions and ordered that,
`
`except in cases of undue hardship for particular witnesses, all depositions take place in the United
`
`States with the parties splitting the travel costs of foreign witnesses.
`
`On February 11, 2016, Plaintiffs and Defendant Matsuo Electric Co., Ltd. (“Matsuo”) filed
`
`discovery letter briefs regarding a dispute over the location of depositions for three Matsuo witnesses.
`
`Dkt. 1067, 1068. On February 22, 2016, the Court held a telephonic hearing on this dispute and, on
`
`February 24, 2016, the Court issued a Minute Order denying Matsuo’s request to change the location
`
`of the three Matsuo witnesses to Japan. Dkt. 1091.
`
`On March 11, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a discovery letter brief seeking to compel production of
`
`documents Defendants turned over to, or were seized by, foreign competition authorities. Dkt. 1103.
`
`On March 16, 2016, the Court ordered Defendants to file a joint discovery letter brief responding to
`
`Plaintiffs’ discovery letter brief (Dkt 1106), which Defendants did, on March 23, 2016 (Dkt. 1114). On
`
`April 4, 2016, the Court heard oral argument on Plaintiffs’ discovery letter brief and ordered that
`
`Defendants must produce to Plaintiffs ordinary course records produced to foreign competition
`
`authorities. Dkt. 1144.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT – MASTER FILE NO.: 3:14-CV-03264-JD
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 1151 Filed 04/08/16 Page 5 of 32
`
`
`
`On March 17, 2016, DPPs and IPPs filed a discovery letter brief seeking to compel production
`
`of English translations of documents produced by Defendant Taitsu to the Department of Justice
`
`(“DOJ”). Dkt. No. 1108. On March 23, 2016, the Court ordered Defendant Taitsu to file a discovery
`
`letter brief in responding to DPPs and IPPs’ discovery letter brief (Dkt. 1113), which Defendant
`
`Taitsu did, on March 28, 2016 (Dkt. 1117). On April 4, 2016, the Court heard oral argument on
`
`Plaintiffs’ discovery letter brief and ordered that Taitsu produce the translations. Dkt. 1144.
`
`On March 25, 2016, DOJ filed a discovery letter brief requesting that the Court stay the
`
`depositions of Masahiro Asakawa and Hideaki Sato, of NEC TOKIN, until October 1, 2016. Dkt.
`
`1115. On April 4, 2016, the Court heard oral argument on DOJ’s discovery letter brief and ordered
`
`that the depositions be deferred until August, 2016. Dkt. 1144. The Court also ordered that DOJ may,
`
`if it believes circumstances warrant a further deferral, request a further deferral of these depositions at
`
`the appropriate time.
`
`On April 7, 2016, Flextronics filed a discovery letter, regarding deposition protocol and
`
`seeking additional time to ask questions of 30(b)(6) witnesses for up to 10 topics relating to issues
`
`specific to Flextronics's claims. Dkt. 1149.
`E. Miscellaneous Matters
`
`On March 22, 2016, IPPs filed their Fourth Consolidated Complaint. Dkt. 1112. IPPs’ Fourth
`
`Consolidated Complaint added six new representative IPPs and altered the relevant time period to
`
`align with the DPPs’ proposed class period. Responses to IPPs’ Fourth Consolidated Complaint are
`
`currently due by April 12, 2016.
`II.
`
`CLASS CERTIFICATION SCHEDULE
`A. Plaintiffs’ Statement
`
`Both IPPs and DPPs seek additional time to prepare their respective class certification
`
`motions. Defendants have agreed with IPPs and DPPs to stipulate to a 90-day extension of their
`
`deadline by which to file their respective class certification motions. The parties will file this
`
`stipulation and [proposed] order with the Court in advance of the April 15 status conference.
`
`Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter the [proposed] order and grant this extension.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT – MASTER FILE NO.: 3:14-CV-03264-JD
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 1151 Filed 04/08/16 Page 6 of 32
`
`
`
`IPPs: IPPs believe that good cause exists to extend the class certification schedule by at least
`
`90 days despite the good faith efforts of the parties to comply with the present schedule. The
`
`following factors require an extension in the schedule.
`
`First, as discussed infra, the slow pace of the non-party productions has hampered IPPs’
`
`experts’ preparation for class certification. In August of 2015, IPPs served a number of subpoenas on
`
`non-party capacitor distributors seeking, among other things, purchase and sales transactional data for
`
`the purpose of demonstrating pass through. Although the parties have been engaged in intensive meet
`
`and confers regarding these productions to reduce the burden on the third parties, to date, IPPs still
`
`do not have the data from six of the major U.S. distributors – Avnet, DigiKey, Future, Master,
`
`Newark Element 14 and others. Although these non-parties have agreed to produce the data and
`
`represent that it will be produced in the next 3 to 6 weeks, IPPs are skeptical given their experience to
`
`date. The subpoenas have been outstanding since August and many of the non-parties have
`
`represented throughout the process that the data would be forthcoming in the very near future. Even
`
`if the non-parties produce the data in the timeframe they have represented, this still puts IPPs in the
`
`very difficult position of having to assess the data and incorporate it into the experts’ econometric
`
`work and report in just over a month under the present class certification schedule.
`
`Second, also discussed infra, the transactional data at issue in this case is voluminous and well
`
`beyond the data produced and analyzed in most other antitrust class actions in this District. IPPs’
`
`experts have stated that there is more data in this case than in any other antitrust case in which they
`
`have worked. Because of the ubiquitous nature of capacitors, there are hundreds of millions of
`
`transactions reflected in the transactional data. Before the experts can create their damages model,
`
`they must analyze and cull the data. The parties have agreed to a process whereby Defendants answer
`
`questions in writing regarding the transactional data. Although this process is difficult and time-
`
`consuming for all parties, the slow pace of many Defendants’ answers to these questions has
`
`hampered IPPs’ experts’ work. IPPs sent out the vast majority of their transactional data questions in
`
`August and September of 2015. There are some Defendants, such as Panasonic-Sanyo and NEC
`
`Tokin, that have yet to respond to these questions. Like the non-party distributors, these Defendants
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT – MASTER FILE NO.: 3:14-CV-03264-JD
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 1151 Filed 04/08/16 Page 7 of 32
`
`
`have represented that their answers will be forthcoming in the very near future, but the class
`
`certification deadline is now only 2 months away.
`
`Third, the ACPERA applicant in this case has not yet finalized its agreement with the
`
`Department of Justice. Consequently, it has been hesitant to provide the required cooperation
`
`because of the lingering uncertainty over its leniency application. IPPs have been informed that
`
`Panasonic-Sanyo’s electrolytic deposition witnesses will not provide substantive testimony and plan
`
`on invoking their Fifth Amendment rights. A number of the other Defendants that are presently
`
`negotiating with the DOJ and will likely plead guilty have likewise stated that their witnesses will not
`
`provide substantive testimony and will invoke their Fifth Amendment rights.
`
`Fourth, DOJ has already sought and been granted a stay of key depositions of NEC Tokin
`
`employees. DOJ has informed IPPs that it plans on seeking stays of depositions of additional key
`
`witnesses from the ACPERA applicant. This puts Plaintiffs in the unenviable position of not being
`
`able to take the depositions of key witnesses from companies that have either pled guilty or have a
`
`statutory duty to provide cooperation to the civil Plaintiffs. Moreover, as discussed by DOJ in its
`
`letter brief, these are witnesses that are at the heart of the electrolytic conspiracy. The litigation
`
`schedule should not be used as both a sword and a shield.
`
`Fifth, at least one Defendant (Panasonic SANYO) has said that it will not provide Rule
`
`30(b)(6) pricing testimony regarding the categories of commerce at issue in Defendants’ FTAIA
`
`summary judgment motions until those motions are resolved. IPPs have informed Panasonic-Sanyo
`
`that its unilateral decision is at odds with Ninth Circuit authority regarding the FTAIA and that it
`
`should provide such testimony. To date, Panasonic SANYO has not filed a motion for a protective
`
`order.
`
`IPPs’ motion for a schedule adjustment will be based on all of the foregoing factors, as well as
`
`other factors more fully described in this Statement.
`
`DPPs: DPPs agree with IPPs’ assessment that good cause exists for extending the schedule
`
`for the reasons they describe above. As detailed below, DPPs have encountered a number of
`
`unforeseen obstacles, some of which were caused by Defendants. DPPs have been working diligently
`
`to overcome these obstacles—in addition to those obstacles presented by reviewing millions of
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT – MASTER FILE NO.: 3:14-CV-03264-JD
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 1151 Filed 04/08/16 Page 8 of 32
`
`
`Defendants’ documents written largely in Japanese—by seeking additional discovery that DPPs
`
`intend to complete in a relatively short timeframe. DPPs understand the Court wishes to
`
`expeditiously move this litigation along and they remain committed to doing so. DPPs are confident
`
`we can overcome these obstacles and obtain this important discovery, but we need an extension of 90
`
`days—at a minimum—to do so.
`
`In chief, DPPs request an extension of the schedule in order to complete analysis of certain
`
`characteristics regarding Defendants’ products. Each Defendant has used and uses company-specific
`
`nomenclature (in Japanese and English) as well as numbering systems and other methods for
`
`identifying and organizing their products for purposes of sales and marketing. In certain cases, the
`
`numbering system includes information regarding product parameters (form factor or case size,
`
`capacitance, tolerance, low ESR rating, and temperature rating, among other things) and permit
`
`capacitors to be organized or analyzed on the basis of common characteristics. In virtually every other
`
`case, manufacturers maintain electronic tables or databases which facilitate such analysis. Other
`
`information (product catalogues, crosswalks) is useful as well .
`
`Beginning some time ago, and continuing during the period before and after Plaintiffs
`
`responded to the factual issues raised by the FTAIA motion, DPPs working with their experts
`
`attempted to resolve issues regarding product identification and characteristics. In connection with
`
`that effort, DPPs have propounded, and Defendants have answered, hundreds of data questions and
`
`Plaintiffs have analyzed Defendants’ responses closely.
`
`In response to numerous inquiries, Defendants referred Plaintiffs back to Defendants’ product
`
`“catalogs,” virtually all of them produced as non-machine-readable image files in TIFF or PDF form.
`
`Despite Plaintiffs requests, Defendants have not provided the native product files in a fully functional,
`
`sortable format. And the total number of such image files exceeded 43,000 pages. DPPs’ experts have
`
`worked diligently with these cumbersome unwieldy records. The process is laborious, time-
`
`consuming, expensive, and ongoing.
`
`In the course of the inquiries regarding the FTAIA data, DPPs however, discovered that
`
`certain Defendants have not provided Plaintiffs with complete and accurate regarding data questions
`
`on products. While Defendants had referred Plaintiffs to Defendants’ productions of product catalog
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT – MASTER FILE NO.: 3:14-CV-03264-JD
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 1151 Filed 04/08/16 Page 9 of 32
`
`
`image files, DPPs found out through follow-up research that no fewer than seven—and possibly
`
`more—Defendants not only maintain electronic product files, but also link these files to online search
`
`functions on their public websites. DPPs’ experts further determined that they could, by accessing
`
`background files that would not generally display on a standard web browser, extract complete
`
`product information in sortable, machine-readable form from the public websites of Defendants
`Nichicon, United Chemi-Con, AVX, KEMET, Panasonic, ROHM, and Holy Stone.2 DPPs, however,
`
`reasonably believe the information available now is incomplete and does not address certain products
`
`Defendants sold previously, during the class period.
`
`DPPs were entitled to take—and took—Defendants’ representations at face value and
`
`consequently undertook the task of trying to obtain this information from paper records or public
`
`sources. This effort has been laborious and time consuming. It has resulted in significant delay and the
`
`DPPs’ unnecessary expenditure of the Class’ time and resources. Moreover, the presence of these
`
`materials online strongly suggests an industry practice that DPPs submit is common sense: when a
`
`company is in the business of selling hundreds or even thousands of related products that must meet
`
`exacting technical specifications to perform their designated functions, that company would
`
`necessarily turn to some type of electronic system for maintaining product attribute information.
`
`Upon learning this information appears to in fact exist in electronic form, DPPs issued to
`
`Defendants a request for a 30(b)(6) deposition on the systems Defendants use to classify and keep
`
`track of their products and the parameters of these products, both sold and offered for sale,
`
`throughout the Relevant Period. DPPs also immediately started negotiating with those Defendants
`
`who appear to have product databases available online for the production of the underlying data, as
`
`the data appears to DPPs to be readily accessible and in usable form within these Defendants’
`
`
`2 See, e.g., Nichicon (http://nichicon-us.com/english/index.html); UCC (http://www.chemi-
`con.com/products); AVX (http://www.avx.com/download/software/SelectCap_6.1.zip); KEMET
`(http://capacitoredge.kemet.com/capedge2/lookup.do); Panasonic
`(http://industrial.panasonic.com/ww/parametric-search); ROHM
`(http://www.rohm.com/web/global/search/parametric/-
`/search/Tantalum%20Chip%20Capacitors); Holy Stone
`(http://www.holystone.com.tw/product_hs.do?phcId=1).
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT – MASTER FILE NO.: 3:14-CV-03264-JD
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 1151 Filed 04/08/16 Page 10 of 32
`
`
`respective possession, custody, or control. Those depositions are not yet set and Defendants are
`
`offering to provide the information informally rather than to provide it under oath. At this point,
`
`DPPs need to pursue formal process to obtain the information. If Defendants continue to withhold
`
`this information which so many of them possess, then Plaintiffs will need additional time to compile
`
`and classify products into some form permitting them to work with the information and conduct their
`
`analysis.
`
`The data questions and production deficiencies surrounding products follow in the wake of
`
`long and well-documented negotiation and disputation on customer information. See e.g., Direct
`
`Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Request for Denial or Continuance of Summary Judgment Under Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`56(d) (Dkt. 970-4); Transcript of Proceedings, January 13, 2016, 48:15-54:2; Joint Statement
`
`Regarding Status of Appendix C Chart Disputes (Dkt. 1076), the various Discovery Letter Briefs filed
`
`thereafter (Dkt. 1077, 1080-83, 1085, 1089-90), and Joint Statement Regarding Responses to the
`
`Court’s FTAIA Questions (Dkt. 1098).
`
`While the parties have reached resolution on the substantial majority of customer information
`
`issues, certain Defendants did not provide bill-to or ship-to customer location information until well
`
`into March 2016. And certain Defendants have yet to provide answers to key transactional data
`
`questions—despite their pledges to do so—that DPPs posed as early as July and August 2015. DPPs
`
`do not wish at this time to recount on the record the full blow-by-blow of the parties’ meet and confer
`
`efforts, but rather raise these issues only to memorialize the fact that driving customer issues to a
`
`conclusion consumed significant time and resources—both from counsel and the DPPs’ experts—
`
`that DPPs might otherwise have devoted to product questions. Should the Court grant the parties’
`
`stipulated request for an extension of the class certification schedule, DPPs need to receive answers to
`
`all questions or complete 30(b)(6) depositions no later than June 13, 2016.
`
`Flextronics: Flextronics does not oppose the request for an extension to the class certification
`
`briefing schedule.
`B. Defendants’ Statement
`
`On March 18, 2015, IPPs approached certain Defendants to request a 60-day extension of
`
`IPPs’ time to file their class certification motion – from June 13, 2016 to August 12, 2016. IPPs have
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT – MASTER FILE NO.: 3:14-CV-03264-JD
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 1151 Filed 04/08/16 Page 11 of 32
`
`
`asserted that they need additional time to obtain third-party data productions to complete their class
`
`certification analyses. Since then, IPPs and certain Defendants have met and conferred regarding
`
`IPPs’ requested extension, in which the Defendants stated that productions from several third parties
`
`are scheduled in the coming weeks and months and Defendants therefore opposed a two-month
`
`extension. In the preparation of this Statement, IPPs have requested a 90-day extension for the first
`
`time, and DPPs have joined in that request with an additional request for a 30-day extension in the
`
`time to file their reply briefs on class certification. Defendants have steadfastly asserted that these
`
`extensions are not necessary, particularly given the Court’s clear direction that class certification be
`
`resolved quickly. But in order to minimize burdening the Court with these types of disputes,
`
`Defendants have informed DPPs and IPPs that Defendants will not oppose DPPs’ and IPPs’ request,
`
`provided that Defendants are given a 30-day extension in their time to file oppositions to DPPs’ and
`
`IPPs’ motions for class certification. The parties plan to file a Stipulation and [Proposed] Order in
`
`advance of the April 15 Status Conference Statement so that the Court can evaluate the requested
`
`extensions before the Status Conference.
`
`It is important to note, however, that Plaintiffs fail to acknowledge the ample assistance
`
`Defendants have provided to help Plaintiffs process and understand Defendants’ transactional data.
`
`For example, Defendants have answered hundreds of Plaintiffs’ data questions. NEC TOKIN, for its
`
`part, produced its transactional data on April 24 and June 15, 2015. On July 3 and August 16, 2015,
`
`NEC TOKIN answered several rounds of DPP’s questions about the data, totaling 60 questions. On
`
`September 29, 2015, IPPs posed additional questions, which were virtually identical to the DPP
`
`questions that NEC TOKIN had already answered, and on that basis, IPPs agreed to withdraw those
`
`questions and posed a handful of additional questions on November 30, 2015. On November 2, 2015,
`
`DPPs and IPPs deposed NEC TOKIN’s 30(b)(6) witness on FTAIA data issues, who testified that he
`
`had personally prepared NEC TOKIN’s transactional data and answered detailed questions about the
`
`data, and NEC TOKIN responded to Plaintiffs’ follow-up questions after the deposition had
`
`concluded. NEC TOKIN will answer all non-duplicative data questions from the IPP’s set within
`
`days of the filing of this statement.
`
`Likewise, the Holy Stone Defendants produced all transactional data requested by Plaintiffs
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT – MASTER FILE NO.: 3:14-CV-03264-JD
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 1151 Filed 04/08/16 Page 12 of 32
`
`
`on May 6, 2015, June 3, 2015, June 12, 2015. Thereafter, the Holy Stone Defendants, on July 17, 2015
`
`and October 14, 2015, answered two sets of questions from Plaintiffs regarding the transactional data,
`
`totaling over seventy questions, including subparts. Then, on November 12, 2015, DPPs deposed a
`
`Holy Stone witness regarding the Holy Stone Defendants’ transactional data.
`
`Further, to respond to IPPs’ third point above, Plaintiffs are incorrect that the Panasonic and
`
`SANYO Defendants have not been cooperative with respect to deposition scheduling. To the
`
`contrary, the Panasonic and SANYO Defendants have, in fact, informed Plaintiffs that they are
`
`willing to proceed with the percipient witness depositions that Plaintiffs have requested, including
`
`taking steps to secure the testimony of former employees who are under no obligation to testify.
`
`Whether or not these witnesses will seek to invoke their Fifth Amendment rights due to the current
`
`status of the DOJ investigation is an individual decision by each of the witnesses, which the Panasonic
`
`and SANYO Defendants cannot control. The Panasonic and SANYO Defendants continue to
`
`provide the required cooperation under ACPERA, and any suggestion to the contrary by Plaintiffs is
`
`inaccurate.
`
`And to respond to IPPs’ fifth point above, there is no ripe issue for resolution at this time
`
`concerning the Panasonic and SANYO Rule 30(b)(6) depositions that are scheduled to proceed on
`
`April 15, 2016 and April 19, 2016, respectively. While it is correct that the Panasonic and SANYO
`
`Defendants have objected on burden and relevancy grounds to having to educate witnesses on
`
`Plaintiffs’ vastly overbroad topics—which would even cover sales that Plaintiffs have conceded are
`
`not in this case— the Panasonic and SANYO Defendants have nonetheless offered witnesses who
`
`have personal knowledge relating to Plaintiffs' Rule 30(b)(6) topics. So Plaintiffs will still be able to
`
`obtain the responsive testimony that they seek from the Panasonic and SANYO Defendants.
`
`Finally, in response to DPPs’ above assertions regarding certain requested capacitor product
`
`information, Panasonic is currently investigating whether it has any internal electronic repositories
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT – MASTER FILE NO.: 3:14-CV-03264-JD
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 1151 Filed 04/08/16 Page 13 of 32
`
`
`that contain the requested capacitor product information. Panasonic will continue to meet and confer
`with DPPs on this issue.3
`III. REPORT ON DISCOVERY MATTERS
`A. Deposition Discovery
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Statement
`
`DPPs and IPPs: As of the date of this joint filing, Plaintiffs have been able to confirm a
`
`deposition schedule consisting of 28 depositions, 16 of which are 30(b)(6) depositions, and practically
`
`all of which are scheduled to be completed prior to the current filing date for Plaintiffs’ respective
`
`class certification motion.
`
`This was a difficult task. Many of the Defendants refused to provide Plaintiffs deposition dates
`
`in the United States until the Court ruled on Plaintiffs’ letter brief requesting that the Court o