Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 1299 Filed 09/29/16 Page 1 of 20
`
`
`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:
`
`October 6, 2016
`1:30 p.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 1299 Filed 09/29/16 Page 2 of 20
`
`
`
`In advance of the Case Status Conference set by the Court for Thursday, October 6, 2016, at
`
`1:30 p.m., Defendants,1 Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (“DPPs”), Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs (“IPPs”),
`
`and Flextronics International USA, Inc. (“Flextronics”) (together with DPPs and IPPs, the
`
`“Plaintiffs”) (collectively, the “Parties”), hereby submit this Joint Status Conference Statement.
`
`I.
`
`DEVELOPMENTS SINCE THE PARTIES’ LAST STATUS CONFERENCE
`
`A. Plaintiffs’ Adverse Inferences and Rule 37 Sanctions Motions
`
`On July, 29, 2016 Plaintiffs filed a Motion Requesting Adverse Inferences Based Upon
`
`Invocation of the Fifth Amendment by certain witnesses employed by Matsuo and Nippon Chemi-
`
`Con (“Adverse Inferences Motion,” Dkt. 1266). That same day, Plaintiffs also filed a Motion for Rule
`
`37(d) Evidentiary Sanctions Against (1) Matsuo Electric Co., Ltd., (2) the Chemi-Con Defendants,
`
`(3) the Rubycon Defendants, and (4) the Nichicon Defendants for Failure to Appear at Duly Noticed-
`
`Depositions (“Rule 37 Sanctions Motion,” Dkt. 1268-4 [redacted]).
`
`On August 12, 2016, the ELNA, Matsuo, and NCC/UCC Defendants filed their opposition to
`
`Plaintiffs’ Adverse Inferences Motion (Dkt. 1278). That same day, the Matsuo, NCC/UCC, Nichicon,
`
`and Rubycon Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiffs’ Rule 37 Sanctions Motion (Dkt. 1277).
`
`On August 19, 2016, Plaintiffs filed their reply briefs in further support of their Adverse
`
`Inferences Motion (Dkt. 1283) and Rule 37 Sanctions Motion (Dkt. 1284).
`
`Both motions are fully briefed and submitted to the Court for resolution.
`
`B. DPPs’ and IPPs’ Motions for Preliminary Approval of Settlements
`
`On September 27, 2016, DPPs filed their Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Actions
`
`Settlements with Defendants Fujitsu Limited, Nitsuko, the Okaya Defendants, NEC TOKIN, and
`
`ROHM (Dkt. 1298). DPPs noticed their motion to be heard on November 3, 2016.
`
`
`
`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
`the
`Panasonic/SANYO, AVX, Nissei Electric Co., and Shinyei 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 1299 Filed 09/29/16 Page 3 of 20
`
`
`
`IPPs anticipate filing their Motion for Preliminary Approval of settlement with Okaya,
`
`Nitsuko, and NEC TOKIN before the Parties’ status conference next week.
`
`C. Other Developments
`
`On July 26, 2016, the Court issued an Order (Dkt. 1263) granting a Stipulation of Dismissal
`
`of Flextronics’s Claims Against KEMET.
`
`On August 22, 2016, the United States filed two Administrative Motions to Consider Whether
`
`Cases Should Be Related (Dkt. 1285, 1286) concerning United States v. Rubycon Corporation and
`
`United States v. Elna Co., Ltd., Case Nos. CR-16-0367-CRB and No. CR 16-0365-EMC,
`
`respectively. On August 23, 2016, the United States filed an Administrative Motion to Consider
`
`Whether Cases Should Be Related (Dkt. 1287) concerning United States v. Holy Stone Holdings Co.,
`
`Ltd., Case No. CR-16-0366-VC. On August 25, 2016, the Court issued a Related Case Order (Dkt.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`1291), finding all three actions related to this case.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`Defendants’ motions on Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (“FTAIA”) matters (Dkt.
`
`911, 915) remain pending. Defendant Nissei Electric Co., Ltd.’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
`
`Personal Jurisdiction (Dkt. 963, 1202) also remains pending.
`
`16
`
`II.
`
`SCHEDULING ISSUES
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`The Parties agree that no scheduling issues are ripe for the Court’s resolution at this time. In
`
`accordance with this Court’s July 20, 2016 Minute Order (Dkt. 1253) (the “July 20th Order”), the
`
`Parties will meet and confer regarding an amended case schedule after the Court issues its rulings on
`
`the pending summary-judgment motions filed under the FTAIA. See July 20th Order at 2 (ordering
`
`the Parties to meet and confer after the “FTAIA Phase II meet and confer.”)
`
`22
`
`III. REPORT ON DISCOVERY MATTERS
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`A.
`
`Depositions
`
`1.
`
`Status of Depositions
`
`a.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Statement
`
`As noted, Plaintiffs’ Rule 37 Sanctions Motion (Dkt. 1266) and Adverse Inferences Motion
`
`(Dkt. 1268-4 [redacted]) is fully briefed. If the Court is so inclined, Plaintiffs are prepared to argue
`
`28
`
`the motions.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT – MASTER FILE NO.: 3:14-CV-03264-JD
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 1299 Filed 09/29/16 Page 4 of 20
`
`
`
`At the Parties’ July Status Conference, Plaintiffs represented that they would not notice and
`
`hold any further depositions for witnesses who have refused to appear in the United States until the
`
`Court rules on the Rule 37 Sanctions Motion. Defendants refused to meet and confer and to schedule
`
`depositions as a result. Until the motions are resolved, Plaintiffs intend to continue to notice
`
`depositions and to proceed as they have in the past if witnesses refuse to appear. In order to advance
`
`the litigation, Plaintiffs need to continue to notice depositions and Defendants should schedule them
`
`pursuant to the Court’s orders regarding scheduling.
`
`Though no issues are ripe at this time, Plaintiffs will be prepared to discuss with the Court
`
`several of the parties’ ongoing disputes about which Plaintiffs will file a letter brief in the near term if
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`a resolution is not reached.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`b. Defendants’ Statement
`
`Defendants agree that Plaintiffs represented to the Court that they would neither notice nor
`
`hold any further depositions for witnesses who have refused to appear in the United States. However,
`
`Defendants have not and did not refuse to meet and confer or to schedule depositions as a result. To
`
`the contrary, multiple Defendants offered and did meet and confer with Plaintiffs for numerous
`
`noticed depositions; likewise, various defendants have scheduled depositions or provided Plaintiffs
`
`with potential dates for depositions since the July 20, 2016 Status Conference. While this issue is not
`
`ripe, Defendants can provide details of the aforementioned to the Court.
`
`2.
`
`30(b)(6) Depositions
`
`a.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Statement
`
`Plaintiffs seek modification of limits on 30(b)(6) depositions because of developments in the
`
`litigation. Previously, DPPs and IPPs agreed to limits allowing for ten 30(b)(1) witnesses and only 14
`
`hours of 30(b)(6) testimony per Defendant family. First, at the time, Plaintiffs reasonably believed
`
`that most if not all of the percipient witnesses to the cartel-activity Plaintiffs challenge would testify
`
`at deposition pursuant to Rule 30(b)(1) deposition notices. In fact, it appears that most of the
`
`witnesses representing Japanese Defendants at cartel meetings have separated from employment,
`
`have refused to testify in Japan or the United States or disobeyed duly issued deposition notices.
`
`28
`
`These facts were not disclosed at the time the limits were negotiated and have only become apparent
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT – MASTER FILE NO.: 3:14-CV-03264-JD
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 1299 Filed 09/29/16 Page 5 of 20
`
`
`in the last months as Plaintiffs began to notice depositions and met and conferred with Defendants
`
`regarding scheduling.
`
`As a result, Plaintiffs seek to rely more extensively on the provisions of 30(b)(6) requiring
`
`Defendants to produce knowledgeable witnesses to testify on the company’s behalf regarding the
`
`deposition topics specified. In particular, Plaintiffs seek to conduct depositions regarding basic facts
`
`regarding the cartel activity challenged, including, for example, the nature, scope and duration of the
`
`price-fixing cartel, the participants, agreements and understandings reached, efforts to discipline or
`
`punish those that may have attempted to cheat on the cartel, withdrawals from the cartel, if any,
`
`pricing issues, and the facts underlying criminal plea agreements.
`
`A copy of the most recent draft notice sent to Hitachi is attached as Exhibit A. When
`
`Plaintiffs met and conferred with counsel for Hitachi, Nippon Chemi-Con, and Nichicon about an
`
`earlier version of this draft 30(b)(6) notice (one that did not include the plea agreement and transfer
`
`pricing topics), counsel raised a number of issues that may become formal objections once Plaintiffs
`
`formally issue the notices. Plaintiffs intend to take 30(b)(6) depositions of Elna, Hitachi, Nichicon,
`
`Nippon Chemi-Con, Panasonic, Rubycon, and SANYO (the “Noticed Defendants”) starting in late
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`November or December 2016.
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`Certain issues Defendants raise would benefit from the Court’s attention at this juncture,
`
`before any 30(b)(6) depositions have begun. In particular, Plaintiffs ask the Court to set the following
`
`ground rules for any 30(b)(6) depositions they may notice based on the topics set forth in Exhibit A.
`
`Plaintiffs request that the Court grant them additional 30(b)(6) time commensurate with
`
`the number of hours of 30(b)(1) testimony they were or will be denied by specific Defendants
`
`due to their employees’ refusal to appear for deposition in the United States. The witnesses that
`
`have refused to appear for depositions in the United States were identified and targeted in discovery
`
`specifically because of their involvement in Defendants’ price fixing conspiracy and the
`
`implementation of the cartel’s aims through the respective Defendants’ price setting processes.
`
`Plaintiffs have identified a significant number of key documents relating to these issues for which the
`
`witness was a custodian or on which the witness was referenced. To properly prepare for a 30(b)(6)
`
`28
`
`deposition, the corporate representative will undoubtedly have to investigate these individuals, their
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT – MASTER FILE NO.: 3:14-CV-03264-JD
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 1299 Filed 09/29/16 Page 6 of 20
`
`
`roles in the conspiracy and/or price setting, and study up on their key documents. It is only equitable
`
`that Plaintiffs be afforded sufficient time to explore with a Defendants’ corporate representative those
`
`facts he or she learned relating to the witnesses who refuse to be deposed. Plaintiffs request that the
`
`Court grant them 12 deposition hours per Defendant family for each witness employed by the
`
`Defendant family that has refused to appear for depositions.
`
`With regard to Defendants other than those whose employees have not or will not
`
`appear for depositions in the U.S., Plaintiffs request that the Court grant them an additional 14
`
`hours of 30(b)(6) time. Even the Defendants whose witnesses have appeared for depositions have
`
`few employees remaining that participated in Defendants’ price fixing conspiracy. Defendants have
`
`produced a variety of documents that detail these employees’ attendance at cartel meetings,
`
`bilateral/multilateral contacts with other Defendants, or implementing the conspiracy’s aims.
`
`Plaintiffs require additional 30(b)(6) time to obtain testimony on these issues.
`
`The 30(b)(6) topics are proper. Certain defendants have asserted that the 30(b)(6) topics—
`
`specifically topics 1-5, which address the cartel and competitor contacts—are too broad for corporate
`
`representative testimony. Such an objection is not well-taken. The topics concern basic details of the
`
`antitrust violations Plaintiffs allege. They are well supported by documents produced. In addition, it
`
`is reasonable to assume—and it has confirmed by testimony taken to date—that many overt acts are
`
`not evidenced by documents because, among other things, Defendants were aware that their activities
`
`were illegal and made efforts to ensure there would be no written record. Burden objections should be
`
`given short shrift because Defendants have conducted investigation into these matters already, in
`
`particular in response to antitrust regulatory inquiries from the DOJ, JFTC, KCC, NDRC, EU and
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`other competition authorities.
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`Neither attorney work product protections nor attorney-client communications privilege
`
`can serve as a basis for a corporate witness refusing to testify about the facts sought by
`
`Plaintiffs through 30(b)(6) depositions. Certain Defendants assert that should a corporate
`
`representative rely on or review investigation materials or attorney work product to investigate the
`
`Defendant’s knowledge of the facts sought with these topics, the witness could not testify about those
`
`28
`
`facts because doing so would violate work product protections and attorney-client privileges. This
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT – MASTER FILE NO.: 3:14-CV-03264-JD
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 1299 Filed 09/29/16 Page 7 of 20
`
`
`position is not supported in the law. See In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig., 2015 U.S.
`
`Dist. LEXIS 147413, **225-226 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2015) (a 30(b)(6) witness educated on internal
`
`investigation materials can be deposed on the facts contained in those materials); Thompson v. C&H
`
`Sugar Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42618, **7-8, 13-14 (N.D. Cal. March 28, 2014) (compelling
`
`30(b)(6) testimony on facts discovered during internal investigation and supporting production of
`
`“fact work product”). Given the fact that 30(b)(6) depositions may be the only way some information
`
`can be obtained, there is a compelling need for this discovery.
`
`Materials a corporate representative relies upon for 30(b)(6) deposition preparation
`
`should be identified in advance of the deposition or produced to Plaintiffs. Defendants are
`
`required to produce a corporate representative sufficiently prepared to testify about Plaintiffs’ topics.
`
`The efficacy of those deposition will be increased if a corporate representative can check or refer
`
`back to certain sources of information about which the company has knowledge, though for which
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`the witness has no personal knowledge.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`b. Defendants’ Statement
`
`The issue of modifying the agreed-upon time limits on 30(b)(6) depositions is not ripe for the
`
`Court’s consideration. Plaintiffs raised this request to all Defendants for the first time in the exchange
`
`of drafts of this Joint Status Report on September 28, 2016. Plaintiffs have not met and conferred
`
`with any Defendants on this particular issue; moreover, no impasse was reached by those Defendants
`
`with whom Plaintiffs did briefly meet and confer on broader 30(b)(6) issues. The blanket request to
`
`add 14 more hours of testimony for all Defendants is particularly unwarranted because the Parties
`
`spent countless hours negotiating the discovery limits, and many of the “developments” Plaintiffs cite
`
`should have been foreseen by their experienced counsel. Regardless, Plaintiffs do not even come
`
`close to justifying such a heavy burden to be added for each individual Defendant. To date, Plaintiffs
`
`have taken numerous 30(b)(6) depositions from Defendants and offer no specifics as to what topics
`
`(for which Defendants) they believe require additional time. Additionally, Plaintiffs have dozens of
`
`available 30(b)(1) depositions to them, which they have simply failed to pursue.
`
`In effect, Plaintiffs are asking for a wholesale grant of additional time for 30(b)(6)
`
`28
`
`testimony—and applicable “ground rules”—even (1) before Defendants have had a chance to
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT – MASTER FILE NO.: 3:14-CV-03264-JD
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 1299 Filed 09/29/16 Page 8 of 20
`
`
`respond or object to Plaintiffs’ notices, and (2) before Plaintiffs have taken any of the depositions at
`
`issue to determine the degree to which their anticipated problems are, in fact, problems at all.
`
`Defendants therefore request that the Court order the Parties to meet and confer on this issue, and to
`
`the extent the Parties cannot reach a resolution, Plaintiffs can file a motion to seek relief.
`
`Plaintiffs also raise in this Statement for the first time with both Defendants and the Court a
`
`request for “ground rules” pertaining to 30(b)(6) depositions. At a high level, the Plaintiffs are asking
`
`this Court to sanction the use of 30(b)(6) depositions to collect testimony reserved for 30(b)(1)
`
`depositions—a run-around of the basic principles and well-established doctrine governing discovery,
`
`evidence, and privilege meant to provide fairness in the proceedings to all Parties.
`
`This matter involves important and complex issues that must be carefully and fully
`
`considered, and which are not appropriate for inclusion in a Joint Status Report.2 Should the Court
`
`choose to entertain Plaintiffs’ request, the Defendants request the Court provide to them the
`
`opportunity to fully brief and argue the various complex issues that these “ground rules” present.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`Letter Request for Deposition of AVX Witness in U.K.
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Statement
`
`DPPs intend to move the Court to issue a Letter of Request to Her Majesty’s High Court of
`
`Justice in England under the Hague Evidence Convention to permit DPPs to take the deposition of
`
`Mr. Peter Collis. Mr. Collis is a former Vice President at AVX Corporation in charge of Tantalum
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`Products during the alleged conspiracy.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`AVX has informed Plaintiffs that, under UK law, AVX requires a court order prior to
`
`divulging Mr. Collis’s last known address in the UK. The company has agreed that they will not
`
`oppose the issuance of such an order. Because the request is uncontested, DPPs would like to raise
`
`whether the Court prefers DPPs to make a formal motion for an order compelling AVX to provide the
`
`24
`
`last known address of Mr. Collis.
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`2 Plaintiffs’ requests are more appropriately suited for motion practice, and at a minimum and in
`accordance with the Court’s standing orders, they should be required to meet and confer with the
`Defendants. Standing Order for Discovery in Civil Cases Before Judge Donato, ¶ 18.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT – MASTER FILE NO.: 3:14-CV-03264-JD
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 1299 Filed 09/29/16 Page 9 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`AVX’s Statement
`
`AVX does not oppose DPPs' limited request for an order requiring it to provide Mr. Peter
`
`Collis's last known address in the UK. However, AVX reserves the right to oppose the issuance of
`
`any other order regarding this issue or Mr. Collis.
`
`B.
`
`Document Productions
`
`The Parties agree that there are no document production issues that are ripe for the Court at
`
`this time.
`
`IV.
`
`THIRD PARTY DISCOVERY MATTERS
`
`The Parties have no third party discovery issues to address with the Court at this time.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`V.
`
`OTHER MATTERS
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`A. Joint Statement Regarding Related Case Filings and MDL
`
`On September 9, 2016, plaintiffs Avnet, Inc. (“Avnet”) and AASI Beneficiaries’ Trust
`
`(“AASI”) filed — with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 a
`
`motion to transfer to this Court (i) Avnet’s individual action, No. 16-cv-02808, filed August 22, 2016
`
`in the District of Arizona (the “Avnet Action”); and (ii) AASI’s individual action, No. 16-cv-23691,
`
`filed August 29, 2016 in the Southern District of Florida (the “AASI Action”). See MDL No. 2748.
`
`The background details and factual allegations in both the Avnet Action and the AASI Action are
`
`substantially copied from the allegations in DPP and Flextronics’ Second Amended Complaint (Dkt.
`
`799-4 [redacted]). Avnet and AASI are represented by the same attorneys. Neither Avnet nor AASI
`
`have completed service of the Defendants in these cases, nor have the district courts in which they
`
`were filed set any briefing or case management schedules.
`
`The Avnet and AASI Actions—as well as any other subsequently filed cases that are related
`
`to this action—should be consolidated with this action for all purposes. Accordingly, DPPs and
`
`Defendants intend to oppose the Avnet and AASI plaintiffs’ motion. If the case is to be consolidated,
`
`the case should be transferred under Section 1404 (forum non conveniens). The Judicial Panel on
`
`Multidistrict Litigation “has often stated that centralization under Section 1407 ‘should be the last
`
`solution after considered review of all other options.’” In re Gerber Probiotic Prods. Mktg., MDL
`
`28
`
`No. 2387, 899 F. Supp. 2d 1378, 1379 (J.P.M.L. 2012). If the Court will recall, an effort to centralize
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT – MASTER FILE NO.: 3:14-CV-03264-JD
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 1299 Filed 09/29/16 Page 10 of 20
`
`
`the Sherman Act Section 1 claims against Defendants under § 1407 in the early days of this case was
`
`ultimately abandoned once counsel for the various direct purchaser plaintiffs “review[ed] . . . all other
`
`options” and agreed to dismiss the case filed outside of the Northern District of California and re-file
`
`it for consolidation before this Court for all purposes. See MDL No. 2574, at Dkt. 102. Because
`
`DPPs’ prosecution of the class’ Sherman Act Section 1 claims is significantly advanced, and because
`
`Avnet and AASI’s belated claims only copy the DPPs’ claims and add nothing new, consolidation
`
`under § 1407 is unwarranted.
`
`DPPs’ and Defendants’ respective oppositions to Avnet and AASI’s motion are due October
`
`3, 2016. MDL No. 2748 will be heard by the Panel at the December 1, 2016 Hearing Session in
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Charlotte, North Carolina.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Date: September 29, 2016
`
`Date: September 29, 2016
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
`
`/s/ Joseph R. Saveri
`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)
`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
`
`COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
`
`
`/s/ Steven N. Williams
`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)
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT – MASTER FILE NO.: 3:14-CV-03264-JD
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 1299 Filed 09/29/16 Page 11 of 20
`
`
`
`Date: September 29, 2016
`
`Date: September 29, 2016
`
`Date: September 29, 2016
`
`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
`
`
`Interim Lead Counsel for Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs
`MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY AND
`POPEO PC
`
`/s/ Bruce D. Sokler
`Bruce D. Sokler (admitted pro hac vice)
`701 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20004
`202-434-7303
`Fax: 202-434-7400
`Email: bdsokler@mintz.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant AVX Corporation
`
`
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR
`LLP
`
`/s/ Heather S. Tewksbury
`Heather S. Tewksbury
`950 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`(650) 858-6134
`Fax: (650) 858-6100
`Email: heather.tewksbury@wilmerhale.com
`
`Attorney for Defendants Elna Co. Ltd. and Elna America
`Inc.
`
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Professional Corporation
`
`/s/ Chul Pak
`Chul Pak (admitted pro hac vice)
`Jeffrey C. Bank (admitted pro hac vice)
`Justin A. Cohen (admitted pro hac vice)
`1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
`New York, New York 10019
`Telephone: (212) 497-7726
`Facsimile: (212) 999-5899
`cpak@wsgr.com
`jbank@wsgr.com
`jcohen@wsgr.com
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Hitachi Chemical Co., Ltd.,
`Hitachi Chemical Company America, Ltd., and
`Hitachi AIC Incorporated
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT – MASTER FILE NO.: 3:14-CV-03264-JD
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 1299 Filed 09/29/16 Page 12 of 20
`
`
`
`Date: September 29, 2016
`
`Date: September 29, 2016
`
`Date: September 29, 2016
`
`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
`
`PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP
`
`/s/ Roxane A. Polidora
`Roxane A. Polidora
`Roxane A. Polidora (CA Bar No. 135972)
`Jacob R. Sorensen (CA Bar No. 209134)
`Four Embarcadero Center, 22nd Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: (415) 983-1000
`Email: roxane.polidora@pillsburylaw.com
`jake.sorensen@pillsburylaw.com
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendants KEMET Corporation and
`KEMET Electronics Corporation
`
`
`
`DENTONS US LLP
`
`/s/ Bonnie Lau
`Bonnie Lau
`525 Market Street, 26th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`415-882-5000
`Fax: 415- 882-0300
`Email: bonnie.lau@dentons.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Matsuo Electric Co., Ltd.
`
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`
`/s/ George A. Nicoud III
`
`GEORGE A. NICOUD III, SBN 106111
`RUPAL M. DOSHI, SBN 305523
`tnicoud@gibsondunn.com
`rdoshi@gibsondunn.com
`
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
`San Francisco, CA 94105-0921
`Telephone:
`415.393.8200
`Facsimile:
`415.393.8306
`
`MATTHEW PARROTT, SBN 302731
`mparrott@gibsondunn.com
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`3161 Michelson Drive
`Irvine, CA 92612-4412
`Telephone:
`949.451.3800
`Facsimile:
`949.451.4220
`
`Attorneys for Defendants NEC TOKIN Corporation and
`NEC TOKIN America, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT – MASTER FILE NO.: 3:14-CV-03264-JD
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 1299 Filed 09/29/16 Page 13 of 20
`
`
`Date: September 29, 2016
`
`Date: September 29, 2016
`
`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
`
`K&L GATES LLP
`
`/s/ Michael E. Martinez
`
`Scott M. Mendel (pro hac vice)
`Steven M. Kowal (pro hac vice)
`Michael E. Martinez (pro hac vice)
`Lauren N. Norris (pro hac vice)
`Brian J. Smith (pro hac vice)
`K&L GATES LLP
`70 West Madison Street, Suite 3100
`Chicago, IL 60602
`Telephone: (312) 372-1121
`Facsimile: (312) 827-8000
`scott.mendel@klgates.com
`steven.kowal@klgates.com
`michael.martinez@klgates.com
`lauren.donahue@klgates.com
`brian.j.smith@klgates.com
`
`
`Counsel for Defendants
`Nichicon Corporation
`Nichicon (America) Corporation
`
`
`
`
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`
`/s/ Jeffrey L. Kessler
`Jeffrey L. Kessler
`Jeffrey L. Kessler (pro hac vice)
`A. Paul Victor (pro hac vice)
`Molly M. Donovan (pro hac vice)
`Mollie C. Richardson (pro hac vice)
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, New York 10166
`Telephone: (212) 294-4698
`Facsimile: (212) 294-4700
`jkessler@winston.com
`pvictor@winston.com
`mmdonovan@winston.com
`mrichardson@winston.com
`
`Ian L. Papendick (State Bar No. 275648)
`101 California Street
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Tel: (415) 591-6905
`Fax: (415) 591-1400
`ipapendick@winston.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants Panasonic Corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT – MASTER FILE NO.: 3:14-CV-03264-JD
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 1299 Filed 09/29/16 Page 14 of 20
`
`
`
`Date: September 29, 2016
`
`Date: September 29, 2016
`
`Date: September 29, 2016
`
`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
`
`Panasonic Corporation of North America, SANYO
`Electric Co., Ltd., and SANYO North America
`Corporation
`
`
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`
`/s/ Michael F. Tubach
`
`Michael F. Tubach (SBN 145955)
`Brian Y. Chang (SBN 287757)
`Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111-3305
`Telephone: (415) 984-8700
`Facsimile: (415) 984-8701
`Email: mtubach@omm.com
`Email: bchang@omm.com
`
`
`Kenneth R. O’Rourke (SBN 120144 )
`400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: (213) 430-6000
`Facsimile: (213) 430-6407
`Email: korourke@omm.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants ROHM Co., Ltd. and ROHM
`Semiconductor U.S.A., LLC
`
`
`
` HUNTON AND WILLIAMS LLP
`
`/s/ Djordje Petkoski
`Djordje Petkoski
`
`2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20037
`202-955-1500
`Email: dpetkoski@hunton.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Rubycon Corporation and
`Rubycon America Inc.
`
`
`PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON
`LLP
`
`/s/ Charles F. Rule
`
`Charles F. Rule (admitted pro hac vice)
`Joseph J. Bial (admitted pro hac vice)
`Daniel J. Howley (admitted pro hac vice)
`2001 K Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20006-1047
`Telephone: 202-223-7300
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT – MASTER FILE NO.: 3:14-CV-03264-JD
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 1299 Filed 09/29/16 Page 15 of 20
`
`
`
`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
`
`Date: September 29, 2016
`
`Date: September 29, 2016
`
`Date: September 29, 2016
`
`Facsimile: 202-223-7420
`rrule@paulweiss.com
`jbial@paulweiss.com
`dhowley@paulweiss.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants United Chemi-Con, Inc. and
`Nippon Chemi-Con Corporation
`
`BONA LAW PC
`
`/s/ Jarod M. Bona__________
`Jarod M. Bona (SBN 234327)
`Aaron R. Gott (admitted pro hac vice)
`BONA LAW PC
`4275 Executive Square, #200
`La Jolla, CA 92037
`Telephone: (858) 964-4589
`Facsimile: (858) 964-2301
`Em