Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 1679 Filed 06/15/17 Page 1 of 26
`
`
`
`[Counsel for Moving Defendants Listed on Signature Pages]
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
`IN RE CAPACITORS ANTITRUST
`LITIGATION
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`
`CERTAIN DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
`TO EXCLUDE THE PROPOSED
`EXPERT TESTIMONY OF DR. JAMES
`T. MCCLAVE
`
`
`September 7, 2017
`Date:
`10:00 a.m.
`Time:
`Judge: Honorable James Donato
`Courtroom 11 – 19th Floor
`
`
`
`Public Redacted Version
`
`
`This Document Relates To:
`
`ALL DIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTAIN DEFS’ MOT. TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DR. JAMES T. MCCLAVE
`
`CASE 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
`
`

`

`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 1679 Filed 06/15/17 Page 2 of 26
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`
`TO THE PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on September 7, 2017, or as soon thereafter as the matter may
`
`be heard, in Courtroom 11, 19th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, before
`the Honorable James Donato, the undersigned Defendants1 will and hereby do move the Court,
`
`under Rules 104(a) and 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, to exclude the proposed testimony of
`
`Dr. James T. McClave, expert for the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, because that testimony is
`
`unreliable and irrelevant as defined by those rules and the interpretation of them as specified by the
`
`Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
`
`This motion is based upon this Notice of Motion, the accompanying Memorandum of Points
`
`and Authorities, the declaration of Matthew R. DalSanto, the complete files and records in this
`
`action, oral argument of counsel, authorities that may be presented at or before the hearing, and such
`
`other and further matters as this Court may consider.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 The Defendants joining this motion are Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North
`America, SANYO Electric Co., Ltd., and SANYO North America Corporation; ELNA Co., Ltd. and
`ELNA America, Inc.; Hitachi Chemical Co., Ltd., Hitachi Chemical Company America, Ltd., and
`Hitachi AIC Incorporated; Nichicon Corporation and Nichicon (America) Corporation; Rubycon
`Corporation and Rubycon America Inc.; United Chemi-Con, Inc. and Nippon Chemi-Con
`Corporation; AVX Corporation; Holy Stone Enterprise Co. and Ltd. Holystone International.
`CERTAIN DEFS’ MOT. TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DR. JAMES T. MCCLAVE
`CASE NO. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`i
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 1679 Filed 06/15/17 Page 3 of 26
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................................................................... 4
`
`ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................................................ 4
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`DR. MCCLAVE IMPROPERLY UTILIZES NON-REPRESENTATIVE
`DATA IN HIS OVERCHARGE AND COMMON IMPACT ANALYSES ............... 4
`
`DR. MCCLAVE'S STATISTICAL ANALYSIS IS BASED ON
`UNVERIFIED AND UNRELIABLE ASSUMPTIONS THAT RENDER IT
`INADMISSIBLE .......................................................................................................... 8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Dr. McClave Improperly Relied On The Direction Of DPPs’ Counsel,
`Without Verification, For The Conspiracy Period In His Analysis .................. 8
`
`Dr. McClave’s Analysis Improperly Assumes
`
`
` ......................... 10
`
`Dr. Mcclave Omitted Rebates And Discounts And Thus Did Not Study
`The Actual Prices Paid By All Direct Purchasers .......................................... 13
`
`III.
`
`DR. MCCLAVE’S DAMAGES METHODOLOGY IS INCOMPATIBLE
`WITH THE THEORY OF ECONOMIC HARM PROFFERED BY DPPS’
`EXPERT ECONOMIST ............................................................................................. 14
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................... 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`CERTAIN DEFS’ MOT. TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DR. JAMES T. MCCLAVE
`ii
`
`CASE 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 1679 Filed 06/15/17 Page 4 of 26
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Black & Decker v. Bosch Tools,
`No. 04 C 7955, 2006 WL 5156873 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 8, 2006) ...........................................................8
`
`Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc.,
`55 F. Supp. 2d 1024 (N.D. Cal. 1999) .............................................................................................4
`
`Comcast Corp. v. Behrend,
`133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013) .....................................................................................................3, 4, 14, 15
`
`Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
`509 U.S. 579 (1993) ............................................................................................................... passim
`
`Sorensen ex rel. Dunbar v. Shaklee Corp.,
`31 F.3d 638 (8th Cir. 1994) ...........................................................................................................10
`
`Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,
`657 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2011) ...........................................................................................................4
`
`Fail-Safe, L.L.C. v. A.O. Smith Corp.,
`744 F. Supp. 2d 870 (E.D. Wis. 2010) .......................................................................................8, 10
`
`In re Intel Corp. Microprocessor Antitrust Litig.,
`No. 05-484-JJF, 2010 WL 8591815 (D. Del. July 28, 2010) ........................................................14
`
`Johnson Elec. N. Am. v. Mabuchi Motor Am. Corp.,
`103 F. Supp. 2d 268 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)..............................................................................................7
`
`King-Indiana Forge, Inc. v. Millennium Forge, Inc.,
`No. 1:07-CV-00341-SEB-DM, 2009 WL 3187685 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 29, 2009) ..............................8
`
`Kumho Tire Ltd. Co. v. Carmichael,
`526 U.S. 137 (1999) .........................................................................................................................4
`
`LeClercq v. The Lockformer Co.,
`No. 00 C 7164, 2005 WL 1162979 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 28, 2005) ..........................................................5
`
`In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litig.,
`No. 13-MD-2420 YGR, 2017 WL 1391491 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2017) ................................ passim
`
`McGlinchy v. Shell Chem. Co.,
`845 F.2d 802 (9th Cir. 1988) ...........................................................................................................7
`
`MDG Int’l, Inc. v. Australian Gold, Inc.,
`No. 1:07-CV-1096-SEB-TAB, 2009 WL 1916728 (S.D. Ind. June 29, 2009) ................................8
`
`In Re Methionine Antitrust Litig.,
`No. 00-1311 CRB, 2003 WL 22048232 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2005) .............................................13
`
`Newkirk v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.,
`727 F. Supp. 2d 1006 (E.D. Wash. 2010), aff’d, 438 F. App’x 607 (9th Cir. 2011) .......................7
`CERTAIN DEFS’ MOT. TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DR. JAMES T. MCCLAVE
`CASE NO. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 1679 Filed 06/15/17 Page 5 of 26
`
`
`
`Philips v. Ford Motor Co.,
`14-CV-02989-LHK, 2016 WL 7428810 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2016) .............................................15
`
`Pierson v. Orlando Health,
`No. 6:08–cv–466–Orl, 2010 WL 3447496 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 30, 2010) ...........................................5
`
`In re Processed Egg Prods. Antitrust Litig.,
`312 F.R.D. 124 (E.D. Pa. 2015) .....................................................................................................11
`
`Reed v. Advocate Health Care,
`268 F.R.D. 573 (N.D. Ill. 2009) .....................................................................................................13
`
`Rojas v. Marko Zaninovich, Inc.,
`No. CIV–F–09–0705 AWI, 2011 WL 6671737 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2011) ....................................5
`
`Rowe Entm’t, Inc. v. William Morris Agency, Inc.,
`No. 98 CIV 8272(RPP), 2003 WL 22124991 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2003) .......................................5
`
`Tesla Wall Systems, LLC v. Budd,
`14-CIV-8564 (LLS), 2017 WL 1498052 (S.D.N.Y. April 26, 2017) ............................................10
`
`Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo,
`136 S. Ct. 1036 (2016) ...........................................................................................................1, 5, 13
`
`Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes,
`131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) .....................................................................................................................4
`
`Werdebaugh v. Blue Diamond Growers,
`12-CV-02724-LHK, 2014 WL 7148923 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2014) .............................................15
`
`Wright v. United States,
`No. CV-06-01788-PHX-NVW, 2008 WL 820557 (D. Ariz. Mar. 25, 2008) ................................14
`
`Other Authorities
`
`David H. Kaye & David A. Freeman, Reference Guide on Statistics, in REFERENCE
`MANUAL ON SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE 217 (3d ed. 2011) .....................................................................7
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 702 .........................................................................................................................1, 4, 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`CERTAIN DEFS’ MOT. TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DR. JAMES T. MCCLAVE
`iv
`
`CASE NO. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 1679 Filed 06/15/17 Page 6 of 26
`
`
`
`ISSUE TO BE DECIDED
`
`Whether the opinions expressed in the report of Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ (“DPPs”) expert
`
`Dr. James T. McClave offered in support of class certification are so unreliable and divergent from
`
`the factual record as to be inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence and the standard set
`
`forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
`
`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
`
`CERTAIN DEFS’ MOT. TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DR. JAMES T. MCCLAVE
`v
`
`CASE NO. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 1679 Filed 06/15/17 Page 7 of 26
`
`DEFINITIONS
`
`Excerpts from the transcript of the deposition of Dr. James T. McClave, May
`9, 2017, attached as Exhibit 1 to the concurrently-filed Declaration of
`Matthew R. DalSanto (“DalSanto Decl.”).
`
`Expert Report of James T. McClave, Ph. D., February 24, 2017, attached as
`Exhibit 2 to the concurrently-filed DalSanto Decl.
`
`Rebuttal Expert Report of James T. McClave, Ph. D., April 28, 2017, attached
`as Exhibit 3 to the concurrently-filed DalSanto Decl.
`
`Comparison of a February 2, 2017 draft of the expert report of James T.
`McClave, Ph. D. to the final February 24, 2017 Expert Report of James T.
`McClave Ph. D., attached as Exhibit 4 to the concurrently-filed DalSanto
`Decl.
`
`Expert Report of J. Douglas Zona, Ph.D., February 24, 2017, attached as
`Exhibit 5 to the concurrently-filed DalSanto Decl.
`
`Excerpts from the transcript of the deposition of J. Douglas Zona, Ph.D., May
`11, 2017, attached as Exhibit 6 to the concurrently-filed DalSanto Decl.
`
`
`
`Tr.
`
`
`
`
`
`Rep.
`
`
`Reply Rep.
`
`
`Draft Rep.
`
`
`Zona Rep.
`
`
`Zona Tr.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`CERTAIN DEFS’ MOT. TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DR. JAMES T. MCCLAVE
`vi
`
`CASE NO. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 1679 Filed 06/15/17 Page 8 of 26
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`It is a pillar of the Daubert and Rule 702 framework that expert opinions be “based on
`
`sufficient facts or data.” Fed. R. Evid. 702; Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S.
`
`579, 589, 592-93 (1993). Dr. McClave’s opinions here are based on neither. Instead, Dr. McClave’s
`
`opinions are based on gaping data holes and false factual assumptions, which led him to select a
`methodology that, based on his own testimony, is not a reliable method to measure class-wide
`
`impact and overcharge for all, or even virtually all, of the putative class. The unreliable methods and
`
`false factual assumptions used by Dr. McClave are so pervasive in his analyses that his opinions
`
`should be excluded in accordance with the Federal Rules.
`Dr. McClave Failed To Use Representative Data. Dr. McClave admits that he utilized a
`
`dataset for all of his analyses that lacks a substantial amount of the relevant and necessary data for
`
`offering any reliable opinions on class-wide impact and damages. For example, his study considers
`no data from six Defendants and lacks data for significant time periods during the alleged class
`
`period from numerous other Defendants. DalSanto Decl. ¶ 4. Despite recognizing the holes in his
`
`data, Dr. McClave admits that he did not perform any analysis whatsoever to make the critical
`
`determination that the data he had was representative of the missing data from his analysis. Tr. 28:7-
`
`16. This failure to study the relevant facts on a class-wide basis, by itself, warrants the exclusion of
`
`Dr. McClave’s opinions. In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litig., No. 13-MD-2420 YGR, 2017
`
`WL 1391491, at *12, *19 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2017) (striking expert opinion for “lack of
`
`representativeness in the data used to conduct the analyses”); see also Tyson Foods, Inc. v.
`
`Bouaphakeo, 136 S. Ct. 1036, 1046 (2016) (samples can be used to offer opinions on class-wide
`
`issues only when there is a basis to conclude that the sample is representative of the whole class).
`Dr. McClave Used Unverified Assumptions About The Timing Of The Conspiracy Period
`Without Analyzing The Issue On His Own. In proffering his opinions about class-wide impact and
`
`damages, Dr. McClave used a “benchmark” methodology which was based on completely
`
`unsupported assumptions about the period of the alleged conspiracy. Specifically,
`
`
`
`
`
`’
`
`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
`
`CERTAIN DEFS’ MOT. TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DR. JAMES T. MCCLAVE
`1
`
`CASE 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 1679 Filed 06/15/17 Page 9 of 26
`
`
`
` Tr. 18:9-22; Rep. §§ 3.1-3.2; Zona Rep. ¶ 20. If Dr. McClave
`
`had instead assumed that the alleged conspiracy started at the time identified in the DOJ allegations
`
`and extended until the time alleged in the DPP amended complaint,
`
`
`
` See Rep. §§ 3.1-3.2. In this situation, Dr.
`
`McClave admitted that
`
`
`
`
`
` Tr. 77:7-78:2. Because he assumed
`
`a conspiracy period that was contrary to the facts and allegations before him, simply because counsel
`
`told him to do so, Dr. McClave’s proffered methodology for determining class-wide impact and
`
`damages is inadmissible. This is particularly true since Dr. McClave did not even inquire why
`
`
`
`Dr. McClave Improperly Aggregated Data And Estimated
`To Mask Significant Differences Among Putative Class Members. Dr. McClave proffers a
`
`
`
`purported class-wide impact and damages analysis by
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Tr. 88:16-91:3, 142:11-19. By
`
`failing to account for major differences among the purchases of different class members of different
`
`products at different times without testing to determine if these differences would materially alter the
`
`results of his impact and damages analysis, Dr. McClave has failed to present any reliable basis to
`
`opine on class-wide impact and damages issues.
`Dr. McClave’s Purported Customer-Specific Analysis Is Circular And Unreliable.
`
`Although Dr. McClave claims to
`
`
`
`CERTAIN DEFS’ MOT. TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DR. JAMES T. MCCLAVE
`2
`
`CASE 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 1679 Filed 06/15/17 Page 10 of 26
`
`
`
` See Tr. 137:21-138:18. Indeed,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Id. 137:21-139:12. It thus cannot save his unreliable opinions about class-wide
`
`impact and damages—which assumes the answer to the question it is supposedly examining by
`
`—from exclusion under Rule 702.
`Dr. McClave Failed To Study Actual Prices Paid By All Direct Purchasers. Dr. McClave
`
`admitted
`
`
`
`. See Tr. 56:16-21.
`
`Thus, his study uses price data that is, in many cases, likely to be materially different from the prices
`
`actually paid by direct purchasers. Dr. McClave’s inability to account for price adjustments and
`
`rebates that caused individual pricing differences renders his class-wide impact opinions unreliable.
`
`See Batteries, 2017 WL 1391491, at *12 (excluding expert analysis that “acknowledged that
`
`bundling, rebates, and discounts would affect the accuracy of cost data, but . . . offered no
`
`methodology to account for it in [the] analysis”).
`Dr. McClave’s Class-wide Overcharge Analysis Is Fundamentally Incompatible With The
`Price Dispersion Theories Being Advanced by DPPs. DPPs’ expert economist, Dr. Zona, has
`
`opined that the alleged conspiracy caused an “increase in price dispersion,” i.e., an increase in the
`
`spread of the prices of the same product sold to different purchasers. Dr. McClave, by contrast,
`
`offers no opinion on the economic effect of the alleged conspiracy, and instead provides a statistical
`
`model to measure class-wide impact based on the assumption
`
`
`
` But both experts have testified to facts that demonstrate that Dr.
`
`McClave’s
`
`
`
`
`
` This
`
`incompatibility creates a fatal disconnect between Dr. McClave’s damages model and Plaintiffs’
`
`theory of the case that, as in Comcast, renders Dr. McClave’s damages opinion of no use to the fact
`
`CERTAIN DEFS’ MOT. TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DR. JAMES T. MCCLAVE
`3
`
`CASE NO. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 1679 Filed 06/15/17 Page 11 of 26
`
`
`
`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
`
`finder. Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426, 1433-35 (2013) (finding Dr. McClave’s
`methodology inadequate on this ground).
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 702 requires that an expert’s testimony (a) “help the trier of fact to
`
`understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;” (b) be “based on sufficient facts or data;”
`
`(c) be the “product of reliable principles and methods;” and (d) have “reliably applied the principles
`
`and methods to the facts of the case.” Fed. R. Evid. 702. Expert opinions must “fit” the facts of the
`
`case, which requires “a valid scientific connection to the pertinent inquiry as a precondition to
`
`admissibility.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 591-92. A court “must ensure that any and all scientific
`
`testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable,” including at class certification. Id.
`
`at 589; Comcast, 133 S. Ct. at 1433; Kumho Tire Ltd. Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 141 (1999)
`
`(gatekeeping function applies to all proffered expert testimony); Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes, 131
`
`S. Ct. 2541, 2553-54 (2011) (indicating Daubert applies to expert testimony at class certification);
`
`Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970, 982 (9th Cir. 2011) (approving the use of motions to
`
`strike expert testimony at class certification stage under Daubert standards).
`
`An expert opinion should be excluded as unreliable when it is (1) based on subjective belief
`
`or unsupported speculation, (2) fails to assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or
`
`determining a fact at issue, (3) fails to address alternative explanations for the data, or (4) rejects
`
`studies with contrary findings. See Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc., 55 F. Supp.
`
`2d 1024, 1034-35 (N.D. Cal. 1999); Daubert, 509 U.S. at 590-91. As the proponent of the proffered
`
`testimony, it is DPPs’ burden to establish its admissibility by a preponderance of the evidence. See
`
`Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592 n.10. The unsupported factual assumptions and unreliable methodologies
`
`that underlie Dr. McClave’s opinions require them to be excluded here, for the following reasons.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`DR. MCCLAVE IMPROPERLY UTILIZES NON-REPRESENTATIVE DATA IN
`HIS OVERCHARGE AND COMMON IMPACT ANALYSES
`Dr. McClave’s overcharge analysis relies on a fraction of only a partial group of Defendants’
`
`sales, but he has done no analysis to determine whether the limited group of data he relies upon is
`
`representative of sales to the class as a whole. Courts routinely reject expert opinions that rely on
`
`CERTAIN DEFS’ MOT. TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DR. JAMES T. MCCLAVE
`4
`
`CASE 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 1679 Filed 06/15/17 Page 12 of 26
`
`
`
`data that is not shown to be representative or that “rely on too narrow a range of data.” Batteries,
`
`2017 WL 1391491, at *12, *19 (denying class certification after striking in part plaintiffs’ proposed
`
`expert testimony for “lack of representativeness in the data used to conduct the analyses”); Pierson
`
`v. Orlando Health, No. 6:08–cv–466–Orl, 2010 WL 3447496, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 30, 2010)
`
`(excluding Dr. McClave’s testimony for “not consider[ing] sufficient facts or data” and “ignor[ing]
`
`available data”); Rojas v. Marko Zaninovich, Inc., No. CIV–F–09–0705 AWI, 2011 WL 6671737, at
`
`*4-5 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2011) (failure to factor in all the data is a “serious methodological flaw[]”);
`
`LeClercq v. The Lockformer Co., No. 00 C 7164, 2005 WL 1162979, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 28, 2005)
`
`(excluding expert’s opinion which relied on only some of the existing data as this “amount[ed] to
`
`‘cherry-pick[ing] the facts he considered to render his opinion, and such selective use of facts fail[s]
`
`to satisfy the scientific method and Daubert”’).
`
`The Supreme Court has explained that, in the class action context, an expert’s use of
`representative data must be sufficient such that every proposed class member could rely on the
`
`expert’s opinion to prove individual damages. See Tyson Foods, 136 S. Ct. at 1040 (sample can be
`
`used if “each class member could have relied on that sample to establish liability had each brought
`an individual action”). To meet that standard, the expert opinion must do something to reliably
`
`show that the data used is representative of the population for which an opinion is being offered.
`
`See, e.g., Rowe Entm’t, Inc. v. William Morris Agency, Inc., No. 98 CIV 8272(RPP), 2003 WL
`
`22124991, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2003) (excluding expert testimony that was based on non-
`
`random data without any showing that the sample used was representative of the population as a
`
`whole). Simply put, Daubert requires more than an expert using subjective ipse dixit to bless his or
`
`her own non-random and woefully incomplete data selection. But that is all Dr. McClave offers.
`
`Dr. McClave admitted that
`
`Decl. ¶ 4. Nor did Dr. McClave conduct any analyses to test whether
`
`
`.2 Tr. 25:5-26:16; DalSanto
`
`
`.3 Moreover, even for those
`
`
`2 Notably, for the seven defendants that only manufacture film capacitors, Dr. McClave did not use
`data for over half of them (i.e., his dataset uses data from only three out of the seven).
`3 Tr. 28:7-16
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`
`CERTAIN DEFS’ MOT. TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DR. JAMES T. MCCLAVE
`5
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 1679 Filed 06/15/17 Page 13 of 26
`
`
`
`Defendants whose data Dr. McClave did utilize in his analysis, he did not use any aluminum or film
`
`capacitor data prior to January 2000, even though (i) such data was produced by a number of
`Defendants;4 and (ii) he did utilize tantalum data from before 2000, indicating that such earlier data
`
`was relevant to his study. Further, his overcharge model also ignores many years of transactions
`
`within the class period for numerous Defendants, as the following chart of his dataset shows:
`
`2015
`
`2014
`
`2013
`
`2012
`
`2011
`
`2010
`
`2009
`
`2008
`
`2007
`
`2006
`
`2005
`
`2004
`
`2003
`
`2002
`
`2001
`
`2000
`
`1999
`
`
`
`AVX
`
`Elna
`
`Hitachi
`
`Holy Stone
`
`Fujitsu
`
`Kemet
`
`Matsuo
`
`NEC Tokin
`
`Nichicon
`
`Nissei
`
`Nitsuko
`
`Okaya
`
`Panasonic
`
`ROHM
`
`Rubycon
`
`Sanyo
`
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`\
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`\
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`\
`\
`\
`\
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`\
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`\
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`\
`\
`\
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`\
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`\
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`\
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`\
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`\
`\
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`\
`\
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`Shinyei
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`
`
`
` See, e.g., Tr. 35:1-9
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`(emphasis added).
`CERTAIN DEFS’ MOT. TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DR. JAMES T. MCCLAVE
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE 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 1679 Filed 06/15/17 Page 14 of 26
`
`
`
`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
`
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`
`\
`\
`\
`
`
`
`
`
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`
`\
`\
`\
`
`\
`
`
`
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`
`\
`\
`\
`
`\
`
`
`Shizuki
`
`Soshin
`
`Taitsu
`
`Toshin
`Kogyo
`
`UCC
`
`
`
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`\
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Aluminum  Tantalum  Film \ No Data (See DalSanto Decl. ¶ 4)
`
` “Inferences from the part to the whole are justified when the sample is representative.”
`
`David H. Kaye & David A. Freeman, Reference Guide on Statistics, in REFERENCE MANUAL ON
`
`SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE 217 (3d ed. 2011) (emphasis added). But significantly, although it is DPPs’
`
`burden to prove admissibility of expert opinions they proffer to support class certification, Dr.
`
`McClave provides no analyses that support the assumption that the limited data used in his report are
`
`representative of the portions of class transactions he did not study. See supra n.3. Because Dr.
`
`McClave performed no study to determine whether his incomplete data was representative of the
`
`entire class, his methodology of extrapolating that non-representative data to draw conclusions about
`
`the entire class is unreliable and inadmissible. See McGlinchy v. Shell Chem. Co., 845 F.2d 802, 807
`
`(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming striking of expert report that improperly extrapolated data about products
`
`from a pooled data set); Newkirk v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 727 F. Supp. 2d 1006, 1022 (E.D. Wash.
`
`2010), aff’d, 438 F. App’x 607 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[an expert] fails to apply reliable scientific methods
`
`when he extrapolates from extremely small samplings to make sweeping conclusions”). As the court
`
`in Batteries recently held, failing to obtain and use data that is representative of purchases by the
`
`entire putative class—as Dr. McClave has done here—requires exclusion. Batteries, 2017 WL
`
`1391491, at *12, *19 (striking expert opinion for “lack of representativeness in the data used to
`
`conduct the analyses”); see also id. at *17 (denying DPPs’ motion for class certification because the
`
`Court could not “ignore the large gaps in the evidence supporting the ability to demonstrate impact
`
`and damages on a class-wide basis”); Johnson Elec. N. Am. v. Mabuchi Motor Am. Corp., 103 F.
`
`Supp. 2d 268, 283-84 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (“even where an expert’s methodology is reliable, if the
`
`analysis is not based upon relevant and reliable data, the expert’s opinion will be inadmissible”).
`
`CERTAIN DEFS’ MOT. TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DR. JAMES T. MCCLAVE
`7
`
`CASE 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 1679 Filed 06/15/17 Page 15 of 26
`
`
`
`II.
`
`DR. MCCLAVE'S STATISTICAL ANALYSIS IS BASED ON UNVERIFIED AND
`UNRELIABLE ASSUMPTIONS THAT RENDER IT INADMISSIBLE
`A. Dr. McClave Improperly Relied On The Direction Of DPPs’ Counsel, Without
`Verification, For The Conspiracy Period In His Analysis
`An expert can rely on information provided by his client only if he independently verifies the
`
`reliability of the information before using it in his calculations. King-Indiana Forge, Inc. v.
`
`Millennium Forge, Inc., No. 1:07-CV-00341-SEB-DM, 2009 WL 3187685, at *2 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 29,
`
`2009); MDG Int'l, Inc. v. Australian Gold, Inc., No. 1:07-CV-1096-SEB-TAB, 2009 WL 1916728,
`
`at *