Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 2500 Filed 12/30/19 Page 1 of 18
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`IN RE CAPACITORS ANTITRUST
`LITIGATION
`
`This Document Relates To:
`DIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS
`ACTION
`
`
`
`
`
`Master File No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`MDL No. 2801
`
`JOINT INITIAL PRETRIAL
`CONFERENCE STATEMENT
`
`Date: Jan. 2, 2020
`Time: 1:30 p.m.
`Place: Courtroom 11, 19th Floor
`Hon. James Donato
`
`
`
`JOINT INITIAL PRETRIAL
`CONFERENCE STATEMENT
`MDL No. 2801
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 2500 Filed 12/30/19 Page 2 of 18
`
`
`
`In advance of the initial pretrial conference to be held on January 2, 2020 at 1:30
`
`p.m., and consistent with the Court’s instruction, the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (“DPPs” or
`
`“Plaintiffs”) and undersigned Defendants hereby submit this Joint Initial Pretrial
`
`
`
`Conference Statement.
`I.
`
`Pretrial Schedule.
`
`Subject to the Court’s approval, DPPs and Defendants have agreed to the following
`
`pretrial schedule:
`
`Event
`
`Meet and confer regarding pretrial filings
`
`Deadline for Defendants to provide DPPs with
`edits/revisions to proposed jury instructions and verdict
`form
`
`Deadline to exchange proposed exhibit lists
`
`
`Initial Pretrial Conference
`
`Meet and confer regarding motions in limine
`
`Deadline to exchange proposed witness lists
`
`Deadline to serve motions in limine
`
`Date
`
`Dec. 20, 2019 – Complete1
`
`Dec. 23, 2019 – Complete
`
`Dec. 27, 2019 – Complete,
`but see the Parties’ positions
`in Section IV, below
`
`Jan. 2, 2020 at 1:30 p.m.
`
`Jan. 3, 2020
`
`Jan. 6, 2020
`
`Jan. 6, 2020
`
`Jan. 9, 2020
`
`Jan. 10, 2020
`
`Deadline for the Parties to exchange their portions of Joint
`Pretrial Statement
`Meet and confer regarding proposed jury instructions and
`verdict form
`
`Deadline to exchange lists of (a) objections to exhibits
`and (b) additional exhibits
`
`Deadline to exchange objections to additional exhibits
`
`Deadline for the Parties to exchange responding portions
`of the Joint Pretrial Statement
`
`1 Events and dates in italics have been set either by the Court’s Standing Order For Civil
`Jury Trials Before Judge James Donato or by the Order found at MDL ECF No. 1037.
`
`- 1 -
`JOINT INITIAL PRETRIAL
`CONFERENCE STATEMENT
`MDL. NO. 2801
`
`Jan. 10, 2020
`
`Jan. 13, 2020
`
`Jan. 14, 2020
`
`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 2500 Filed 12/30/19 Page 3 of 18
`
`
`
`Event
`
`Date
`
`In-person meet and confer regarding exhibits
`
`Jan. 15, 2020
`
`Deadline to serve oppositions to motions in limine
`
`Jan. 16, 2020
`
`
`
`Deadline for the parties to finalize their portions of Joint
`Pretrial Statement
`
`Pretrial filings due:
`
`
` Deadline to file charts of (a) admissible exhibits;
`and (b) disputed exhibits;
` Deadline to file proposed jury instructions and
`verdict form;
` Deadline to file joint witness list (including brief
`statement describing substance of testimony and
`estimate of amount of time testimony will take
`(direct and cross));
` Deadline to file motions in limine and oppositions
`(movants to file pairings);
` Deadline to file trial briefs; and
` Deadline to file Joint Pretrial Statement
`
`Deadline to email Word version of proposed jury
`instructions and verdict form to jdpo@cand.uscourts.gov
`
`Deadline to exchange deposition designations
`
`Deadline to exchange deposition counter-designations or
`objections to designations
`
`Deadline for exchange of objections to counter
`designations
`
`Meet and confer regarding deposition designations and
`objections
`Pretrial Conference
`
`Jan. 19, 2020
`
`Jan. 20, 2020
`
`
`Jan. 21, 2020 by noon
`Pacific
`
`See the Parties’ positions
`below
`
`See the Parties’ positions
`below
`
`See the Parties’ positions
`below
`
`Feb. 11, 2020
`
`Feb. 13, 2020 at 1:30 p.m.
`
`Deadline to file deposition designations (including
`counter-designations or objections)
`
`Deadline to submit exhibit binders to Court
`
`Feb. 26, 2020
`
`March 2, 2020
`
`Trial start date
`
`
`
`March 2, 2020 at 9:00 a.m.
`
`- 2 -
`
`JOINT INITIAL PRETRIAL
`CONFERENCE STATEMENT
`MDL. NO. 2801
`
`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 2500 Filed 12/30/19 Page 4 of 18
`
`
`
`
`
`In addition to these agreed-upon dates, the parties have agreed to exchange
`
`demonstrative exhibits two days before their intended use.
`A.
`This case has been pending for over five years. Trial had previously been set for
`
`Plaintiffs’ Position on Deposition Designations.
`
`February 2, 2020, and after a brief continuance related to the PGE bankruptcy litigation trial
`
`was reset to March 3, 2020. There is no reason why the parties should not have been
`
`preparing for trial such that they can exchange deposition designations on a reasonable date.
`
`There are several reasons why. First, there is no reason whatsoever to think that anyone is
`
`going to review and offer testimony at trial from 275 deposition transcripts. Second, while
`
`Plaintiffs may use most of the depositions in this case against the defendants, the
`
`defendants do not have that right vis-à-vis plaintiffs and thus have nowhere near 275
`
`deposition transcripts that they could potentially designate. Third, the burden here is clearly
`
`on DPPs, who have no power to compel defendants’ employees and former employees to
`
`appear at trial and thus must rely on deposition testimony much more than defendants.
`
`DPPs are not only prepared to, but believe it is essential that designations happen sooner
`
`because counter-designations, objections, and meet-and-confers about objections need to
`
`take place and that should happen sooner rather than later.
`B.
`There are approximately 275 deposition transcripts in this case that need to be
`
`Defendants’ Position on Deposition Designations.
`
`reviewed and excerpted for common issues among the Defendants as well as Defendant-
`
`specific issues. While this work is already under way, completion will take an
`
`extraordinary amount of time and it is critically important to Defendants’ evidentiary
`
`presentations at trial. For this reason, as well as the press of other work that needs to be
`
`completed prior to the January 20, 2020 pretrial filing deadline, Defendants have proposed
`
`that deposition designations be completed after the pretrial filing deadline, on a schedule
`
`that provides the Parties with the time necessary to counter designate, object, meet and
`
`confer and ultimately meet the deadline to file deposition designations with the Court.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`JOINT INITIAL PRETRIAL
`CONFERENCE STATEMENT
`MDL. NO. 2801
`
`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 2500 Filed 12/30/19 Page 5 of 18
`
`
`
`
`
`Thus, Defendants have proposed that the Parties exchange deposition designations
`
`on January 31, 2020, exchange objections and counter designations on February 7, 2020,
`
`and exchange objections to counter designations on February 10, 2020. This schedule will
`
`not impact the Parties’ agreed-upon February 11, 2020 date to meet and confer on
`
`deposition designations or the February 26, 2020 deadline to file deposition designation
`
`materials set by the Court’s Standing Order. Defendants respectfully request that the Court
`
`enter an Order adopting this deposition designation schedule.
`II.
`
`Trial Length.
`A.
`The Class understands that the Court will impose time limits and that trial time will
`
`Plaintiffs’ Position.
`
`be split 50-50 between the plaintiffs and defendants. General Signal Corp. v. MCI, 66 F.3d
`
`1500, 1508 (9th Cir. 1995) (district court may impose reasonable time limits), citing
`
`Monotype Corp. v. International Typeface Corp., 43 F.3d 443, 451 (9th Cir. 1994)
`
`(upholding time limits even though “it provide significantly less time than the parties
`
`estimated would be required”). Id. Plaintiffs will be prepared to begin trial on March 3,
`
`2020. The Class is of the view that a trial can be concluded in fewer than five weeks and
`
`notes that the only occasion when the parties had together considered a trial of that length
`
`or longer was before the appointment of lead class counsel, Rule 12 proceedings, discovery,
`
`or guilty pleas and at a time when all 22 Defendants remained in the case and the trial under
`
`consideration would have included both direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs.
`B.
`Defendants respectfully submit that a fair and orderly trial of this case will require at
`
`Defendants’ Position.
`
`least 5 weeks for several reasons. First, 7 corporate families remain as Defendants in
`
`DPPs’ case and approximately 14 other corporate families are alleged to be co-conspirators.
`
`Beyond the sheer number of Defendants and alleged co-conspirators, each Defendant’s case
`
`will involve unique evidence and issues of law and fact. For example, several Defendants
`
`and alleged co-conspirators were not part of any government investigation into the alleged
`
`conspiracy. Other Defendants and alleged co-conspirators are alleged to have been part of
`
`- 4 -
`JOINT INITIAL PRETRIAL
`CONFERENCE STATEMENT
`MDL. NO. 2801
`
`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 2500 Filed 12/30/19 Page 6 of 18
`
`
`
`
`the alleged conspiracy during different time periods, which raise individualized joint and
`
`several liability issues. And still other Defendants and alleged co-conspirators were not
`
`active in selling the products at issue or to the customers in the DPP class, which raise
`
`questions about their participation in the alleged conspiracy as well as the critical issue of
`
`class-wide injury. Second, Defendants currently estimate that approximately 25 percipient
`
`witnesses and 7 expert witnesses, which include joint experts as well as experts for
`
`individual Defendants, will testify live in Defendants’ case. Third, many of Defendants’
`
`percipient witnesses will testify through a translator, which more than doubles the amount
`
`of time that these witnesses will be on the stand. Finally, DPPs’ initial exhibit list, which
`contains over 3,200 exhibits, which is discussed below in Section IV, is further evidence
`
`that trial cannot be completed in the amount of time DPPs are proposing.
`
`A number of recent, similar antitrust trials in this District – each of which involved
`
`far fewer defendants – required more or the same amount of time than what Defendants
`
`estimate for this matter. For example, the direct purchaser plaintiff trial in In re: TFT-LCD
`
`(Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, 07-md-01827 (N.D. Cal.) (Illston, J.), involving only 1
`
`defendant, lasted 6 weeks. Likewise, the single-plaintiff opt-out trial in In re: TFT-LCD
`
`(Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, 07-md-01827 (N.D. Cal.) (Illston, J.), involving 2
`
`defendants, also ran for 6 weeks. And trial in In re Korean Ramen Antitrust Litigation, 13-
`
`cv-4115 (N.D. Cal.) (Orrick, J.), involving only 2 defendants, lasted 5 weeks.
`
`Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request that the Court set aside at least 5
`
`weeks to complete trial in this matter.
`III. Opening Statements.
`A.
`Plaintiffs’ Position.
`The Class believes that 30 minutes is sufficient for opening statements for each side
`
`and that that limit should apply to statements presented on behalf of all Defendants. The
`
`Class would not object, however, to supplemental opening statements presented by
`
`individual Defendants of any duration on individual issues, including up to Defendants’
`
`requested length of three hours.
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`JOINT INITIAL PRETRIAL
`CONFERENCE STATEMENT
`MDL. NO. 2801
`
`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 2500 Filed 12/30/19 Page 7 of 18
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants’ Position.
`
`B.
`Mindful of the Court’s rule that opening statements are generally limited to 30
`
`minutes per side, (Standing Order For Civil Jury Trials Before Judge James Donato at ¶
`
`35), Defendants believe that they will need additional time to present a concise, coordinated
`
`and comprehensive opening statement that introduces the Defendants and the alleged co-
`
`conspirators and provides the jury with an overview of the relevant issues and facts that will
`
`be established by the evidence. In order for the jury to have the appropriate context to
`
`understand the evidence as it starts to come in, the jury will need a basic understanding of
`
`what the evidence will be as to the products at issue, the customers at issue, the marketing
`
`mechanisms at issue, the unique and differentiated businesses of the Defendants and the
`
`alleged co-conspirators as well as the evidence regarding each Defendants’ and alleged co-
`
`conspirator’s participation or non-participation in the alleged conspiracy.
`
`Thus, in order to avoid duplication and save time, Defendants request that they be
`
`permitted to provide the jury with a single opening statement that relates to all Defendants,
`
`followed by shorter statements by particular Defendants focused on issues and evidence
`
`unique to their cases. Defendants estimate that they can accomplish a complete opening
`
`statement, with the joint presentation and individual presentations described above, in 3
`
`hours or less, but believe that the allocation of this amount of time should be left to
`
`Defendants’ discretion.
`IV.
`
`Exhibit Lists.
`A.
`Defendants first sent their language below at about 4 p.m. Pacific on the day this
`
`Plaintiffs’ Position.
`
`statement is due. The issue is very simple. DPPs have no expectation that they will have an
`
`exhibit list of 3,200 entries, as trial counsel will no doubt enter into many stipulations of
`
`fact, stipulations as to the authenticity of documents produced by Defendants, and
`
`agreements on the presentation of eviidence through summary exhibits. Fed. R. Evid. 1006.
`
`However, the fact is that the evidence of conspiracy in this case spans a duration of at least
`
`twelve years and included regularly scheduled cartel meetings throughout that period. If
`
`- 6 -
`JOINT INITIAL PRETRIAL
`CONFERENCE STATEMENT
`MDL. NO. 2801
`
`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 2500 Filed 12/30/19 Page 8 of 18
`
`
`
`
`reasonable agreements are reached DPPs have no doubt that they will cut their exhibit list
`
`substantially. However, no meaningful meet-and-confer has happened yet. DPPs suggest
`
`that the Court have counsel report to Court early on January 2, 2020, to begin their meet-
`
`and-confer about these issues.
`B.
`On Friday, December 27, 2019, DPPs provided Defendants an “initial” exhibit list
`
`Defendants’ Position.
`
`of over 3,200 entries, more than three times the number of entries on the Defendants’
`
`combined list. Bearing in mind the Court’s reference to “focus[ing] and streamlin[ing] trial
`
`preparation” (ECF 1040), Defendants have worked hard to prepare and provide pretrial
`
`exchanges that are tailored to the evidence and issues that will actually be presented at trial.
`
`Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the DPPs.
`
`With over 3,200 entries, DPPs’ exhibit list cannot be considered a good faith effort
`
`of providing an initial trial exhibit list consistent with Rule 26(a)(3)(A)(iii) of the Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires “an identification of each document or other
`
`exhibit . . . the party expects to offer and those it may offer if the need arises.” Indeed, a list
`
`of this length is completely inconsistent with DPPs’ repeated, prior representations that they
`
`envision only a week or two to present their case in chief. (Tr. of Nov. 7, 2019 Status
`
`Conference at 8:11-15, 10:12-13.) It is also inconsistent with DPPs’ October 4, 2019 letter
`
`to Defendants regarding documents that DPPs intend to use at trial, which identified only a
`
`small fraction of these 3,200 documents. Under the circumstances, an initial exhibit list of
`
`this length violates the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, not to mention implicating Federal
`
`Rules of Evidence 403 (court may exclude relevant evidence that risks “undue delay,
`
`wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence”) and 611(a) (court “should
`
`exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of … presenting evidence so as to …
`
`avoid wasting time”) and the spirit in which they were written.
`
`In an effort to address this issue, on December 29, 2020, Defendants requested that
`
`DPPs reconsider their position, send an amended list and provide Defendants with a few
`
`additional days to evaluate the revised list. Minutes later, DPPs responded that the
`
`- 7 -
`JOINT INITIAL PRETRIAL
`CONFERENCE STATEMENT
`MDL. NO. 2801
`
`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 2500 Filed 12/30/19 Page 9 of 18
`
`
`December 27 list “is [DPPs’] exhibit list” and that they “object to [Defendants’] taking any
`
`
`
`extra time.”
`
`DPPs’ overbroad exhibit list and their subsequent refusal to tailor it does not just
`
`burden the Defendants during a critical stage of trial preparation. It also inevitably gives
`
`rise to unnecessary disputes that will waste the resources of the Court and counsel. For all
`
`these reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court (i) direct DPPs to produce on
`
`or before January 5, 2020 an exhibit list with those documents DPPs truly “expect[] to offer
`
`and those [they] may offer if the need arises”; and (ii) allow Defendants to raise objections
`
`and offer rebuttal exhibits during trial, as necessary.
`V.
`
`Pending Motions.
`A.
`The following motions are pending in the DPP case:
`
`List of Motions.
`
`Summary Judgment Motions
`1.
`
`Film-Only Defendants’ Joint Motion for Summary Judgment (MDL ECF
`
`687).
`
`2.
`
`Certain Defendants’ Joint Motion for Summary Judgment Against Direct
`
`Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Claims (MDL ECF No. 673).
`3.
`
`Holy Stone Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for
`
`Partial Summary Judgment on Direct Purchaser and Direct Action Plaintiffs’ Claims (MDL
`
`ECF No. 671-4).
`4.
`
`AVX Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment Against all Plaintiffs
`
`(MDL ECF No. 651).
`5.
`
`United Chemi-Con, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (MDL ECF No.
`
`665).
`
`656).
`
`
`
`6.
`
`Nippon Chemi-Con Corp.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (MDL ECF No.
`
`- 8 -
`
`JOINT INITIAL PRETRIAL
`CONFERENCE STATEMENT
`MDL. NO. 2801
`
`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 2500 Filed 12/30/19 Page 10 of 18
`
`
`
`
`
`Daubert Motions
`7.
`
`Certain Defendants’ Motion to Exclude the Proposed Expert Testimony of
`
`Dr. James T. McClave (MDL ECF No. 661).
`8.
`
`Certain Defendants’ Joint Motion to Exclude Testimony of Dr. Hal J. Singer
`
`(MDL ECF No. 647).
`9.
`
`Certain Defendants’ Motion to Exclude the Proposed Expert Testimony of
`
`Joseph P. Russoniello (Civ. ECF No. 2333).
`10.
`
`Direct Purchaser Class and Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude,
`
`in Part, the proposed Expert Testimony of Spencer L. Simons (MDL ECF No. 672).
`11.
`
`Direct Purchaser Class’s Motion to Partially Exclude Proposed Expert
`
`Testimony of Janusz A. Ordover (MDL ECF No. 669).
`
`Other Motions
`12.
`
`Defendants’ Motion for Decertification of Direct Purchaser Plaintiff Class
`
`(MDL ECF No. 992).
`13.
`
`Defendants’ Motion Requesting Consideration of and Decision on
`
`KEMET’s Motion for Summary Judgment (MDL ECF No. 1017) (noticed for hearing on
`
`January 9, 2020).
`14.
`
`Defendants ELNA and Matsuo’s Motion to: (1) Admit Trial Testimony and
`
`(2) Preclude Evidence of Prior Invocations of the Fifth Amendment of Messrs. Inoue,
`
`Kinoshita, Imai and Okubo (MDL ECF No. 1030) (noticed for hearing on January 9, 2020).
`15.
`
`Defendants Nippon Chemi-Con Corp. and United Chemi-Con, Inc. have
`
`noticed a January 30, 2020 hearing date on their Motion for an Order (I) Allowing Noriaki
`
`Kakizaki to Testify Substantively at Trial and (II) Precluding Plaintiffs from Offering
`
`Evidence of Mr. Kakizaki’s Prior Invocation of His Fifth Amendment Rights at an Earlier
`
`Deposition (MDL ECF No. 1045) (noticed for hearing on January 30, 2020).2
`
`
`2 It is DPPs’ position that the last two motions constitute two of defendants’ collective
`motions in limine. Defendants disagree.
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`JOINT INITIAL PRETRIAL
`CONFERENCE STATEMENT
`MDL. NO. 2801
`
`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 2500 Filed 12/30/19 Page 11 of 18
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants’ Statement.
`
`B.
`The motions listed above as numbers 13 (MDL ECF No. 1017), 14 (MDL ECF No.
`
`1030), and 15 (MDL ECF No. 1045) are relevant to Defendants’ trial preparations as well
`
`as Defendants’ plans for trial presentations. Thus, Defendants respectfully request that the
`
`Court hold hearing on these motions on January 9 and January 30, 2020, as noticed.
`VI. Recent Productions and Document Translations.
`A.
`Plaintiffs’ Statement.
`Defendants are continuing to produce documents in violation of Rule 34 and the
`
`Court’s Scheduling Orders. The most recent documents, produced by the ELNA
`
`Defendants this past Friday, December 27, 2019, would appear to be basis for undisclosed
`
`percipient or expert testimony. Plaintiffs’ experts did not have an opportunity to review
`
`these materials before preparing their reports or giving deposition testimony. Plaintiffs’ trial
`
`preparation has substantially advanced without these documents.
`
`Plaintiffs’ discovery requests in this action expressly requested product catalogs,
`
`Plaintiffs’ experts have made use of such catalogs in their analyses, and the Defendants’
`
`product portfolios have been the subject of expert testimony.
`
`Defendants’ proposal to submit alternative translations of the documents evidencing
`
`Defendants’ conduct would clearly prejudice Plaintiffs. The Class has produced translations
`
`of documents introduced at deposition and submitted in support of its briefing months and
`
`in most cases years ago. Defendants raised general objections but never offered translations
`
`of their own. To the extent Defendants possessed alternative translations, they should have
`
`been produced long ago. They should not now be permitted to submit their own preferred
`
`versions, or rewrite the translations to suit their preference, on the eve of trial.
`B.
`On Friday, December 27, 2019, the same day the parties exchanged initial trial
`
`Defendants’ Statement.
`
`exhibit lists, ELNA provided plaintiffs with sixteen (16) documents it intends to use as trial
`
`exhibits. It did so in compliance with the pretrial disclosure requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`26(a)(3)(A)(iii). Nine (9) of these documents are annual catalogues of capacitors sold by
`
`- 10 -
`JOINT INITIAL PRETRIAL
`CONFERENCE STATEMENT
`MDL. NO. 2801
`
`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 2500 Filed 12/30/19 Page 12 of 18
`
`
`ELNA, which are not responsive to or necessary to satisfy plaintiffs’ requests for the
`
`production of documents as objected to by ELNA. The other seven (7) documents are
`
`translations of previously-produced documents. These translations were prepared by
`
`ELNA for the Department of Justice and, according to the Court’s April 30, 2015 order
`
`
`
`pertaining to the DOJ’s electrolytic investigation, not required to be produced. See 14-cv-
`
`3264, Dkt. 678 (“The Court denies plaintiffs’ request for copies of the English-translated
`
`documents that were provided by defendants to the DOJ.”). In addition, ELNA obtained
`
`certificates of accuracy for these seven (7) translations in November 2019, and produced
`
`the certificates of accuracy along with the translations. Accordingly, neither ELNA nor any
`
`other Defendant is “in violation of Rule 34 and the Court’s Scheduling Orders.”3
`
`As a more general matter, Defendants intend to provide DPPs with additional
`
`document translations or counter-translations to translations previously provided by DPPs.
`
`Since October 2019, Defendants have attempted to negotiate a process and schedule for
`
`doing this, but DPPs have continued to claim that the production of such translations are
`
`“late.” Defendants plan on producing to DPPs all additional document translations and
`
`counter translations by February 12, 2020, well in advance of trial.
`VII. Motions In Limine.
`A.
`Plaintiffs’ Position.
`Like much of this statement, the section below was sent to DPPs late on the day that
`
`it was due, and seems to reflect a lack of understanding of DPPs’ position that could be
`
`solved easily through meet-and-confer. Before this was sent, defendants had indicated that
`
`they would abide by the Court’s standing order (as noted above, defendants have already
`
`used two of their motions in limine.). This draft was the first time that DPPs learned that
`
`Defendants changed their position, but as set forth above there is reason to believe that
`
`
`3 In fact, on the same day, DPPs produced to Defendants two new translations of documents
`previously produced in this action.
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`JOINT INITIAL PRETRIAL
`CONFERENCE STATEMENT
`MDL. NO. 2801
`
`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 2500 Filed 12/30/19 Page 13 of 18
`
`
`counsel will be able to substantially reduce their exhibit lists once they meet-and-confer,
`
`and as a result defendants will not need to expand their motions in limine.
`B.
`As set forth in the Parties’ November 1, 2019 Joint Status Conference Statement,
`
`Defendants’ Position.
`
`
`
`Defendants envisioned a possibility that they may require more than the 8 motions in limine
`
`per side, as permitted by the Court’s Standing Order, depending on the Parties’ proposed
`
`exhibit lists. (MDL ECF No. 994 at 3.) Now that Defendants have seen DPPs’ initial
`
`exhibit list, with over 3,200 potential exhibits, it has become clear that the seven remaining
`
`Defendant families will require, collectively, more than 8 motions in limine. In order to
`
`help streamline trial and the presentations of evidence, Defendants believe that they can
`
`address all these evidentiary issues in no more than 12 motions in limine and request that
`
`the Court permit them to do so.
`
`Enlarging the number of motions in limine is consistent with recent antitrust trials in
`
`this District, each of which, again, involved far fewer defendants. For example, in the
`
`direct purchaser plaintiff trial in In re: TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, 07-md-
`
`01827 (N.D. Cal.) (Illston, J.), the parties filed fifty-one motions in limine. (See Dkt. No.
`
`5597.) Likewise, in the opt-out trial in In re: TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation,
`
`07-md01827 (N.D. Cal.) (Illston, J.), the parties filed forty-two motions in limine. (See Dkt.
`
`8298.) While Defendants are not proposing an expansion in motions in limine of these
`
`proportions, it is Defendants’ view that a modest expansion of the motion in limine limit to
`
`12 per side is necessary. In addition, Defendants have committed to a meet and confer
`
`process with DPPs aimed at reaching stipulations on evidence and thus minimizing the
`
`number of motions in limine needed by both sides.
`
`Dated: Dec. 30, 2019
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`JOINT INITIAL PRETRIAL
`CONFERENCE STATEMENT
`MDL. NO. 2801
`
`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 2500 Filed 12/30/19 Page 14 of 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
`Joseph R. Saveri
`Steven N. Williams
`James G. Dallal
`Kyle P. Quackenbush
`Anupama K. Reddy
`601 California Street, Suite 1000
`San Francisco, California 94108
`
`By: /s/ Joseph R. Saveri
`
`
`Lead Counsel for the Direct Purchaser Class
`
`JONES DAY
`Jeffrey A. LeVee
`Eric P. Enson
`Kelly M. Ozurovich
`555 South Flower Street, 50th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`jlevee@jonesday.com
`epenson@jonesday.com
`kozurovich@jonesday.com
`
`John M. Majoras
`51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20001-2113
`jmmajoras@jonesday.com
`
`By: /s/ Eric P. Enson
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`HOLY STONE ENTERPRISE CO, LTD.,
`MILESTONE GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY, INC., and
`VISHAY POLYTECH CO., LTD.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: Dec. 30, 2019
`
`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
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`JOINT INITIAL PRETRIAL
`CONFERENCE STATEMENT
`MDL. NO. 2801
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 2500 Filed 12/30/19 Page 15 of 18
`
`
`Dated: Dec. 30, 2019.
`
`
`
`
`
`MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY AND
`POPEO P.C.
`Bruce D. Sokler
`Robert G. Kidwell
`701 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20004
`bdsokler@mintz.com
`RGKidwell@mintz.com
`
`MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY AND
`POPEO P.C.
`Evan S. Nadel
`44 Montgomery Street, 36th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`enadel@mintz.com
`
`By: /s/ Bruce D. Sokler
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`AVX CORPORATION
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`JOINT INITIAL PRETRIAL
`CONFERENCE STATEMENT
`MDL. NO. 2801
`
`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 2500 Filed 12/30/19 Page 16 of 18
`
`
`Dated: Dec. 30, 2019.
`
`
`
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND
`DORR LLP
`Heather S. Nyong’o
`1 Front Street, Suite 3500
`San Francisco, California 94111
`Heather.Nyongo@wilmerhale.com
`
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR
`LLP
`Thomas Mueller (pro hac vice)
`1875 Pennsylvania Ave NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Thomas.Mueller@wilmerhale.com
`
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR
`LLP
`Chris Johnstone
`950 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Chris.Johnstone@wilmerhale.com
`
`By: /s/ Heather S. Nyong’o
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`ELNA CO., LTD. and ELNA AMERICA, INC.
`
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`Bonnie Lau
`425 Market Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`blau@mofo.com
`
`
`By: /s/ Bonnie Lau
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`MATSUO ELECTRIC CO., LTD.
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`JOINT INITIAL PRETRIAL
`CONFERENCE STATEMENT
`MDL. NO. 2801
`
`
`Dated: Dec. 30, 2019.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 2500 Filed 12/30/19 Page 17 of 18
`
`
`Dated: Dec. 30, 2019.
`
`PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
`GARRISON LLP
`Charles F. Rule
`Joseph J. Bial
`2001 K Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20006-1047
`rrule@paulweiss.com
`jbial@paulweiss.com
`
`KAUFHOLD GASKIN LLP
`Steven Shea Kaufhold
`388 Market St, Suite 1300
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`skaufhold@kaufholdgaskin.com
`
`By: /s/ Joseph J. Bial
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: Dec. 30, 2019.
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`NIPPON CHEMI-CON CORPORATION and UNITED
`CHEMI-CON, INC.
`
`DENTONS US LLP
`Gaspare J. Bono
`Claire Maddox
`Leslie Barry
`1900 K Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Email: gap.bono@dentons.com
`claire.maddox@dentons.com
`leslie.barry@dentons.com
`
`DENTONS US LLP
`Andrew S. Azarmi
`One Market Plaza, Spear Tower, 24th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94105
`Email: andrew.azarmi@dentons.com
`
`By: /s/ Gaspare J. Bono
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`SHINYEI KAISHA, SHINYEI TECHNOLOGY CO.,
`LTD., SHINYEI CAPACITOR CO., LTD. and
`SHINYEI CORPORATION OF AMERICA, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`JOINT INITIAL PRETRIAL
`CONFERENCE STATEMENT
`MDL. NO. 2801
`
`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 2500 Filed 12/30/19 Page 18 of 18
`
`
`
`
`
`BONA LAW PC
`Jarod M. Bona
`Aaron R. Gott
`4275 Executive Square, Suite 200
`La Jolla, CA 92037
`Email: jarod.bona@bonalawpc.com
`aaron.gott@bonalawpc.com
`
`By: /s/ Jarod M. Bona
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`TAITSU CORPORATION and TAITSU AMERICA,
`INC.
`
`- 17 -
`
`JOINT INITIAL PRETRIAL
`CONFERENCE STATEMENT
`MDL. NO. 2801
`
`
`
`Dated: Dec. 30, 2019.
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`