throbber
Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 2421 Filed 08/15/19 Page 1 of 6
`
`Whitney E. Street (State Bar No. 223870)
`BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
`100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: (415) 968-1852
`Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
`Email: wstreet@blockesq.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Charles E. Tompkins (admitted pro hac vice)
`WILLIAMS MONTGOMERY & JOHN LTD.
`1200 18th Street NW, Suite 325
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`Telephone: (202) 791-9951
`Facsimile: (312) 630-8586
`Email: cet@willmont.com
`
`Paul J. Ripp (admitted pro hac vice)
`WILLIAMS MONTGOMERY & JOHN LTD.
`233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 6800
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Telephone: (312) 443-3200
`Facsimile: (312) 630-8500
`Email: pjr@willmont.com
`
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff Flextronics International USA, Inc.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`IN RE CAPACITORS ANTITRUST
`LITIGATION
`
`
`
`
`THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
`
`FLEXTRONICS INTERNATIONAL USA,
`INC.’S ACTION
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`MDL No. 2801
`
`FLEXTRONICS INTERNATIONAL USA,
`INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
`TO EXCLUDE PORTIONS OF THE
`PROPOSED EXPERT REPORT AND
`TESTIMONY OF SPENCER L. SIMONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED]
`
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`
`1
`FLEX’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO EXCLUDE PORTIONS OF THE PROPOSED EXPERT REPORT AND
`TESTIMONY OF SPENCER L. SIMONS
`
`
`
`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
`
`30
`
`31
`
`32
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 2421 Filed 08/15/19 Page 2 of 6
`
`
`
`Flextronics International USA, Inc. (“Flex”) submits this reply in support of its Motion to
`
`Exclude Portions of the Proposed Expert Report and Testimony of Spencer L. Simons. Simons,
`
`the Defendants’ expert on sales and marketing in the capacitors industry, opined that collusion
`
`was unlikely in the capacitors industry because the industry is highly differentiated. Report at
`
`2.3.0. When asked what training he has on whether collusion is more or less likely in a particular
`
`situation, Simons responded that he had “
`
`” Dep. at 74:15-18. Simons does not have
`
`an economics degree and admits that he is “
`
`.” Dep. at 54:12-25.
`
`I.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Experts may not testify regarding areas outside their expertise. Apple, Inc. v. Samsung
`
`Elecs. Co., Ltd., Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK, 2013 WL 5955666, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2013)
`
`(citing White v. Ford Motor Co., 312 F.3d 998, 1008–09 (9th Cir. 2002) (“A layman, which is
`
`what an expert witness is when testifying outside his area of expertise, ought not to be anointed
`
`with ersatz authority as a court-approved expert witness for what is essentially a lay opinion.”)).
`
`Here, Simons admits that the question of whether collusion is more or less likely in a given
`
`situation is “
`
`” and that he is “
`
`.” Dep. at 54:12-
`
`25; 55:1-56:7. The Court should accept Simons’s representation that his conclusion is outside his
`
`area of expertise, and exclude that conclusion.
`
`Defendants do not, and cannot, contend that Simons is qualified to opine on the likelihood
`
`of collusion generally. Rather, Defendants attempt to recategorize Simons’s opinion on the
`
`likelihood of collusion as Simons offering an opinion on the “technical and commercial aspects of
`
`the capacitors industry.” Defs.’ Opp’n at 18. Mr. Simons’s Report directly contradicts the point:
`
`Based upon the complexities and highly differentiated nature of the
`capacitor industry, I conclude that it is highly unlikely that the defendant
`capacitor manufacturers successfully colluded to uniformly increase the
`
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`
`2
`FLEX’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO EXCLUDE PORTIONS OF THE PROPOSED EXPERT REPORT
`AND TESTIMONY OF SPENCER L. SIMONS
`
`
`
`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
`
`30
`
`31
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 2421 Filed 08/15/19 Page 3 of 6
`
`
`
`price of aluminum, tantalum, and film capacitors during the Relevant
`Period.
`
`Report at 2.3.0 (emphasis added).
`
`Mr. Simons is, by his own admission, unqualified to testify regarding the likelihood of
`
`collusion because he has “
`
`” and is “
`
`” on the topic. Dep. at 74:15-18; 54:12-
`
`25.
`
`Defendants cite to three cases they claim provide support for their argument that a witness
`
`who is admittedly not an expert in a given area can nonetheless provide expert testimony in that
`
`area. None fit the facts of this case, and none support allowing Simons to give an expert opinion
`
`in an area in which he is “
`
`” Dep. at 54:12-25.
`
`The Toomey case cited by Defendants involved an expert witness who possessed
`
`experience “modeling and forecasting…economic outcomes,” had taken a variety of college and
`
`graduate-level courses in mathematics, accounting, economics, and statistics, had written a
`
`masters thesis on the valuation of services in the relevant industry, had written books on billing
`
`in the relevant industry, and had created a damages calculation that relied on simple arithmetic
`
`rather than econometric modeling. See Toomey v. Nextel Commc’ns, Inc., No. C-03-2887 MMC,
`
`2004 WL 5512967, at *7-8 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2004). By contrast, Simons provides no external
`
`source for his opinion on the likelihood of collusion, which he admits is “
`
`
`
`” but rather is merely applying his “
`
`.” Dep. at 55:1-56:7; 60:23-63:8.
`
`In Berlyn, an expert was deemed qualified to offer an opinion on pricing below marginal
`
`cost in the newpaper industry because the expert had “conducted and reviewed predatory pricing
`
`analyses for several major publications,” had studied finance and served as a senior financial
`
`executive for several prominent companies, and had teaching experience specifically dealing with
`
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`
`3
`FLEX’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO EXCLUDE PORTIONS OF THE PROPOSED EXPERT REPORT
`AND TESTIMONY OF SPENCER L. SIMONS
`
`
`
`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
`
`30
`
`31
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 2421 Filed 08/15/19 Page 4 of 6
`
`
`
`topics such as newspaper costs and price structuring. Berlyn, Inc. v. Gazette Newspapers, Inc., 214
`
`F. Supp. 2d 530, 537-540 (D. Md. 2002). By contrast, and as pointed out in Flex’s Motion, the
`
`court in Berlyn excluded the same expert’s opinion defining the relevant market because the
`
`witness lacked the relevant education, training, or experience to offer that opinion. See id.; Flex
`
`Mot. at 5.
`
`Defendants’ citation to GSI Technology is puzzling. In GSI Technology, the proposed
`
`expert witness offered the opinion of “[redacted]” and possessed the experience of “[redacted].”
`
`GSI Tech., Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp., No. 5:11-CV-03613-EJD, 2015 WL 364796, at
`
`*2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2015) (redactions in original). Defendants fail to explain how an entirely
`
`redacted opinion supports their position that an expert witness can offer an opinion that is
`
`admittedly outside his or her area of expertise.
`
`Defendants suggest that Flex can “point out to the jury that Mr. Simons’ expertise is
`
`grounded in industry experience rather than economic theory.” Defs.’ Opp’n at 21.1 But whatever
`
`the value of Mr. Simons’ industry experience generally, that experience does not translate into an
`
`expert opinion about the likelihood of collusion. As Mr. Simons testified, his opinion regarding
`
`the likelihood of collusion is a two-step analysis. First, Mr. Simons opines that there is significant
`
`differentiation among products in the capacitors industry. Dep. at 74:1-8. Second, Mr. Simons
`
`opines that the product differentiation he claims to have identified renders collusion unlikely.
`
`Dep. at 74:9-18. Mr. Simons himself conceded that this aspect of his opinion is based on “
`
`
`
`
`1 Defendants cite to Icon-IP, which involved a witness qualified to offer an opinion comparing
`two bicycle saddles because the witness had extensive experience conducting product reviews
`and comparisons of cycling gear as a journalist and editor of cycling magazines. Icon-IP Pty Ltd.
`v. Specialized Bicycle Components, Inc., 87 F. Supp. 3d 928, 946 (N.D. Cal. 2015). That witness,
`however, does not appear to have offered an opinion on any subject outside his very narrow area
`of comparing a bicycle saddle to another bicycle saddle. Id.
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`
`4
`FLEX’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO EXCLUDE PORTIONS OF THE PROPOSED EXPERT REPORT
`AND TESTIMONY OF SPENCER L. SIMONS
`
`
`
`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
`
`30
`
`31
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 2421 Filed 08/15/19 Page 5 of 6
`
`
`
`” Dep. at 63:4-8. It is axiomatic that an expert cannot opine based on common sense because
`
`common sense does not require specialized expertise or training. See Fed. R. Evid. 702; Daubert
`
`v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 590 (1993). We trust jurors to bring common sense to
`
`the courtroom, not paid experts.
`
`II.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons set forth above, Flex respectfully requests that the Court exclude Mr.
`
`Simons’s opinion that collusion was unlikely.
`
`
`
`Dated: August 15, 2019
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`WILLIAMS MONTGOMERY & JOHN LTD.
`
`By: /s/ Charles E. Tompkins
`
`Charles E. Tompkins
`
`Charles E. Tompkins (admitted pro hac vice)
`WILLIAMS MONTGOMERY & JOHN LTD.
`1200 18th Street NW, Suite 325
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`Telephone: (202) 791-9951
`Facsimile: (312) 630-8586
`Email: cet@willmont.com
`
`Paul J. Ripp (admitted pro hac vice)
`WILLIAMS MONTGOMERY & JOHN LTD.
`233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 6800
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Telephone: (312) 443-3200
`Facsimile: (312) 630-8500
`Email: pjr@willmont.com
`
` Whitney E. Street (State Bar No. 223870)
` BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
` 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
` San Francisco, CA 94111
`
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`
`5
`FLEX’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO EXCLUDE PORTIONS OF THE PROPOSED EXPERT REPORT
`AND TESTIMONY OF SPENCER L. SIMONS
`
`
`
`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
`
`30
`
`31
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 2421 Filed 08/15/19 Page 6 of 6
`
` Telephone: (415) 968-1852
` Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
` Email: wstreet@blockesq.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff Flextronics International
`USA, Inc.
`
`Doc. 1290141
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`
`6
`FLEX’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO EXCLUDE PORTIONS OF THE PROPOSED EXPERT REPORT
`AND TESTIMONY OF SPENCER L. SIMONS
`
`
`
`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
`
`30
`
`31
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket