`
`
`
`JACKLIN CHOU LEM (CSBN 255293)
`ALEXANDRA J. SHEPARD (CSBN 205143)
`HOWARD J. PARKER (WSBN 07233)
`ANDREW J. NICHOLSON-MEADE (CSBN 284070)
`PARADI JAVANDEL (CSBN 295841)
`KELSEY LINNETT (CSBN 274547)
`U.S. Department of Justice
`Antitrust Division
`450 Golden Gate Avenue
`Box 36046, Room 10-0101
`San Francisco, CA 94102
`Telephone: (415) 934-5300
`jacklin.lem@usdoj.gov
`
`
`
`Attorneys for the United States
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
`UNITED STATES’ ADMINISTRATIVE
`MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER
`CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
`
`
`
`No. 3:14-CV-03264-JD
`Filed: July 18, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`No. CR 15-0163-JD
`Filed: March 12, 2015
`
`
`
`IN RE: CAPACITORS
`ANTITRUST LITIGATION
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
`
` v.
`
`TAKURO ISAWA,
`
`
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`U.S.’s MTN. TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES
`SHOULD BE RELATED (ELNA)
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`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 1286 Filed 08/22/16 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`No. CR 15-0426-JD
`Filed: September 2, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`No. CR 16-0180-JD
`Filed: April 27, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No. CR 16-0365-EMC
`Filed: August 22, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
`
` v.
`
`NEC TOKIN CORP.,
`
`
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
`
` v.
`
`HITACHI CHEMICAL CO., LTD.,
`
`
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
`
` v.
`
`ELNA CO., LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`The United States files, under Civil L.R. 3-12, this Administrative Motion to Consider
`Whether Cases Should Be Related. This motion pertains to the cases In re: Capacitors Antitrust
`Litigation, No. 14-CV-03264-JD, and U.S. v. Elna Co., Ltd., No. CR 16-0365-EMC. In the civil
`matter, In re: Capacitors Antitrust Litigation, plaintiffs allege, in part, that various manufacturers
`of electrolytic capacitors engaged in anticompetitive conduct in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1. In
`the criminal matter, U.S. v. Elna Co., Ltd., Elna is charged with violating 15 U.S.C. § 1, due to
`its participation in a conspiracy to fix prices and rig bids of electrolytic capacitors. These two
`cases should be related because they involve the same anticompetitive electrolytic capacitors
`
`
`U.S.’s MTN. TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES
`SHOULD BE RELATED (ELNA)
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`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 1286 Filed 08/22/16 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`conspiracy, Elna is a defendant in both cases, and there is a substantial overlap in the alleged
`events and transactions. If these two cases are conducted before different judges, there will
`likely be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense.
`The above-captioned cases, U.S. v. Takuro Isawa, U.S. v. NEC TOKIN Corp., and U.S. v.
`Hitachi Chemical Co., Ltd. have previously been related to In re: Capacitors Antitrust Litigation,
`for the same reasons cited herein. Today, simultaneous with the filing of this case against Elna,
`two other criminal cases were also filed: U.S. v. Rubycon Corporation, No. CR 16-0367-CRB,
`and U.S. v. Holy Stone Holdings Co., Ltd., No. CR 16-0366-VC. In those two cases, the United
`States plans to file similar motions to relate.
`
`
`DATED: August 22, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` /s/ Howard J. Parker
`Howard J. Parker
`Trial Attorney
`United States Department of Justice
`Antitrust Division
`
`
`U.S.’s MTN. TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES
`SHOULD BE RELATED (ELNA)
`
`
`
`
`3
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
