Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 754 Filed 07/01/15 Page 1 of 24
`
`
`
`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.
`505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625
`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
`
`Hearing:
`Date:
`Time:
`Place:
`Judge:
`
`July 8, 2015
`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 754 Filed 07/01/15 Page 2 of 24
`
`
`
`
`In advance of the Quarterly Status Conference set by the Court for Wednesday, July 8, 2015,
`at 1:30 p.m., Defendants,1 Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (“DPPs”), and Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs
`(“IPPs” and, together with DPPs, the “Plaintiffs”), hereby submit this Joint Status Conference
`
`Statement.
`I.
`
`DEVELOPMENTS SINCE THE LAST QUARTERLY STATUS CONFERENCE
`
`Since the parties were last before the Court, the following case developments transpired:
`
`On May 28, 2015, the Court adopted as an Order the parties’ Stipulation and Proposed Order
`
`re: discovery limits pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f).
`
`On June 1, 2015, DPPs submitted a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of their claims against
`
`Defendants EPCOS AG and EPCOS Inc. pursuant to a tolling agreement.
`
`On June 3, 2015, the parties submitted a Joint Statement regarding a proposed case schedule.
`
`On June 8, 2015, the Court issued an Amended Scheduling Order that adopted the discovery
`
`deadlines jointly proposed by the parties in the June 3, 2015 Joint Statement.
`
`On June 11, 2015, the Court denied Nippon Chemi-Con Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss for
`
`lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2).
`
`Also on June 11, 2015, the Court granted, with leave to amend, Defendant FPCAP Electronics
`
`(Suzhou) Co., Ltd.’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
`
`On June 16, 2015, DPPs filed their First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint
`
`(“FAC”) and IPPs filed their Second Consolidated Complaint.
`
`On June 18, 2015, DPPs filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of their claims against
`
`Defendant Vishay Intertechnology, Inc., pursuant to a tolling agreement.
`
`
`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 Hitachi
`Chemical Co., Ltd., Hitachi Chemical Company America, Ltd., Hitachi AIC Incorporated, Fujitsu
`Ltd., KEMET Corporation, KEMET Electronics Corporation, Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic
`Corporation of North America, SANYO Electric Co., Ltd., SANYO North America Corporation,
`Holy Stone Enterprise Co., Ltd., HolyStone International, and Vishay Polytech Co., Ltd. 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 754 Filed 07/01/15 Page 3 of 24
`
`
`
`On June 19, 2015, Plaintiffs and certain Defendants agreed to a core set of search terms and
`
`submitted a joint letter addressing this issue.
`
`On June 19, 2015, DPPs filed a Discovery Letter Brief regarding the designation of document
`
`custodians by Defendants KEMET Corporation and KEMET Electronics Corporation.
`II.
`
`DISCOVERY MATTERS AGREED UPON BY THE PARTIES
`A. Custodian and Search Term Negotiations
`The parties have concluded negotiations regarding the initial designation of document
`
`custodians and identification of globally applicable search terms. Consistent with the jointly-agreed
`
`deadlines adopted by the Court, on June 19, 2015, DPPs submitted a discovery letter brief regarding
`
`the one document custodian issue on which the parties reached impasse: DPPs’ request that
`
`Defendants KEMET Corporation and KEMET Electronics Corporation include as a custodian their
`
`Chief Executive Officer, Per-Olof Loof (Dkt.748). The KEMET Defendants’ response to DPPs’ letter
`
`brief is due the same day as this Joint Status Conference Statement. Certain remaining Defendant-
`
`specific custodian issues are the subject of ongoing meet and confers, and the parties have agreed to
`
`bring any disputes to the Court’s attention promptly when and if it becomes apparent no agreement is
`
`possible on a particular issue.
`
`The parties also reached agreement on English language search terms and phrases to be
`
`applied globally across the electronically stored documents collected for Defendants’ agreed-upon
`
`document custodians, subject to Defendant- or custodian-specific issues, and advised the Court that
`
`there were no outstanding issues related to search terms that required court intervention in a joint
`
`submission on June 19, 2015. See Dkt. 749. On June 24, 2015, Plaintiffs provided Defendants with
`
`Japanese language search terms and phrases translated to correspond with the agreed-upon general
`
`search terms and phrases. The parties are meeting and conferring regarding these translations. The
`
`parties continue to work together to arrive at appropriate search terms applicable to individual
`
`Defendants, including both terms applicable only to specific Defendants as well as terms that should
`
`not be applied to electronically stored information held by a particular Defendant due to its unique
`
`circumstances, as contemplated in the Joint Statement Re Case Schedule (Dkt. 730, fn.1). The parties
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT – MASTER FILE NO.: 3:14-CV-03264-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 754 Filed 07/01/15 Page 4 of 24
`
`
`
`have agreed to bring any such remaining search term issues to the Court’s attention promptly when
`
`and if it becomes apparent no agreement is possible on a particular issue (Dkt. 749).
`B. Stipulation on Discovery of Electronically-Stored Information
`The parties are close to agreement on the terms of a Stipulation and [Proposed] Order re
`
`Discovery of Electronically Discovered Information after exchanging multiple drafts of the proposed
`
`stipulation since January 2015. The parties anticipate jointly submitting the Stipulation and
`
`[Proposed] Order to the Court by the date of the Case Management Conference.
`
`C.
`
`Discovery Requests to Nippon Chemi-Con (“NCC”)
`
`Following the Court’s ruling denying NCC’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal
`
`jurisdiction, Plaintiffs have served NCC with discovery requests. Plaintiffs are meeting and
`
`conferring with NCC concerning an expedited schedule for production of documents that will bring
`
`NCC into compliance with the schedule set by the Court.
`
`III. DISCOVERY MATTERS WHERE THE PARTIES DISAGREE AS TO THE
`STATEMENT TO THE COURT
`
`
`A. Defendants’ Document Productions to Date
`Plaintiffs’ Statement
`
`As of June 26, 2015, many Defendants had yet to produce significant volumes of documents
`
`following the Court’s lifting of the discovery stay on April 7, 2015. Despite committing to June 30,
`
`2015 as the deadline for the production of documents from centralized files responsive to Plaintiffs’
`
`First Set of Requests for Production, a deadline since adopted as an Order of the Court, most
`
`Defendants have only recently started producing these materials. While Bates numbers do not
`
`provide a complete picture (because some large documents produced in native format only receive a
`
`single Bates number), the total number of Bates numbers is a useful rough metric for gauging
`
`production volumes. To date only two Defendant families, the ELNA Defendants and the NEC
`
`TOKIN Defendants, have passed the 100,000-page mark, and the ELNA Defendants’ productions
`
`still account for approximately half of the total number of pages Defendants have produced.
`
`Defendants’ totals as of June 26 are as follows:
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT – MASTER FILE NO.: 3:14-CV-03264-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 754 Filed 07/01/15 Page 5 of 24
`
`Defendant Family
`AVX
`ELNA
`EPCOS
`Fujitsu
`Hitachi
`Holy Stone
`KEMET
`Matsuo
`NEC TOKIN
`Nichicon
`Nippon Chemi-Con
`Nissei
`Nitsuko
`Okaya
`Panasonic
`ROHM
`Rubycon
`Shinyei
`Shizuki
`Soshin
`Taitsu
`TOSHIN KOGYO
`TOTAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pages
`4,839
`354,390
`4,662
`0
`4,506
`936
`24,977
`15,852
`183,734
`15,033
`54,731
`--
`1
`23,004
`32,070
`5,090
`10,526
`4,866
`--
`401
`6,178
`--
`730,276
`
`In the days after June 26, 2015 and preceding the filing of this statement, Plaintiffs have
`
`
`
`
`
`received productions from a number of Defendants (e.g., Hitachi, KEMET, Nichicon, Nitsuko,
`
`Panasonic, ROHM, Rubycon, Shinyei and Soshin), thus increasing their respective page counts.
`
`Plaintiffs are in the process of verifying this information and will be capable of providing the Court
`
`with updated production information at the Quarterly Status Conference.
`
`Defendants’ statement below regarding the status of the parties’ ESI stipulation is completely
`
`incorrect. There have been a number of conversations among counsel throughout the month of June
`
`regarding the Defendants’ refusal to produce natively as Plaintiffs have requested—instead producing
`
`in TIFF format—and their refusal to agree that they have waived their right to seek an accounting
`
`(should they be entitled to do so) even should they produce in TIFF format against Plaintiffs’ request.
`
`Once the parties reached an understanding on how to memorialize this issue in the ESI stipulation,
`
`the parties then agreed that the stipulation should be updated to reflect the parties’ progress on
`
`agreeing to search terms and phrases, and that it should memorialize the parties’ dispute resolution
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT – MASTER FILE NO.: 3:14-CV-03264-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 754 Filed 07/01/15 Page 6 of 24
`
`
`
`process for ESI search term and phrase issues. As noted herein, the ESI stipulation likely will be
`
`submitted to the Court in short order.
`Defendants’ Statement
`
`Defendants do not believe there is any discovery dispute relating to Defendants’ document
`
`productions to date that is ripe for Court resolution at this time. Defendants are fully in compliance
`
`with the Court’s Orders and Plaintiffs can point to no instance where any Defendant violated the
`
`Court’s Orders. Defendants are working diligently to produce a large number of documents on a
`
`rolling basis in a short amount of time pursuant to the agreed-upon schedules. To the extent Plaintiffs
`
`are attempting to reverse course on the discovery dates they previously agreed to, that attempt should
`
`be denied and Plaintiffs should be ordered to meet and confer with Defendants prior to raising such
`
`issues with the Court.
`
`In any event, the page numbers quoted by Plaintiffs undercount the Bates-numbered pages
`
`actually produced by Defendants by over 160,000 pages. For example, Holy Stone has produced
`
`3,292 pages, not 936; KEMET has produced 30,710 pages, not 24,977; Nichicon has produced
`
`25,533 pages, not 15,033; Panasonic has produced 37,152 pages, not 32,070; ROHM has produced
`
`31,761 pages of documents, not 5,090; Rubycon has produced 84,737 pages, not 10,526; Shinyei has
`
`produced 10,384 pages, not 4,866; Soshin has produced 761, not 401; and Taitsu has produced
`
`30,126 pages, not 6,178. And as Plaintiffs acknowledge, focusing solely on page counts as
`
`determined by Bates numbers provides an incomplete picture of productions involving native files,
`
`which receive a single Bates number but can amount to hundreds or thousands of pages if printed.
`
`For example, Nichicon’s production of 25,533 Bates-numbered pages includes 3.1 gigabytes of
`
`natively produced documents and data, which is equivalent to 419,000 pages of documents.
`
`Similarly, Taitsu’s production of 30,216 Bates-numbered pages includes 1.041 gigabytes of natively
`
`produced documents and data, which if produced as individual Bates-numbered pages would bring
`
`the total produced to approximately 198,000 pages of documents. Okaya has produced 5.27
`
`gigabytes of natively produced documents and data, which is equivalent to 217,161 pages of
`
`documents. KEMET’s production of 30,710 Bates numbered pages includes 1,796 natively produced
`
`documents and data which is the equivalent of at least 113,000 pages of documents. The Panasonic
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT – MASTER FILE NO.: 3:14-CV-03264-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 754 Filed 07/01/15 Page 7 of 24
`
`
`
`and SANYO defendants’ production of 37,152 Bates-numbered pages includes 4.14 gigabytes of
`
`natively produced files that contain over 20.95 million lines of data, which is the equivalent of over
`
`685,000 printed pages.
`
`Finally, the Court should be aware that Plaintiffs’ repeated delays in this case are not helping
`
`their efforts to receive documents from the Defendants quickly. Plaintiffs have missed agreed-upon
`
`deadlines regarding custodian negotiations with particular Defendants and have failed to timely
`
`respond to Defendants’ ESI proposals. For example, the parties Joint ESI Stipulation has been
`
`delayed over a single issue (cost-shifting of TIFF imaging) for which Defendants provided Plaintiffs
`
`with suggested compromise language on June 2, 2015, but have not received any response.
`
`
`B. Plaintiffs’ Document Productions to Date
`Defendants’ Statement
`
`Plaintiffs have not yet produced many of the materials requested by Defendants. All of the
`
`DPPs together have produced only 146 Bates-numbered pages combined:
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`Chip-Tech, Ltd.
`Dependable Component Supply Corp.
`eIQ Energy, Inc.
`Walker Component Group, Inc.
`DPP TOTAL
`
`
`
`Pages
`138
`1
`6
`1
`146 pages
`
`
`
`All of the IPPs have produced 1,084 Bates-numbered pages combined:
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`Michael Brooks
`CAE Sound
`Steve Wong
`Toy Knowlogy, Inc.
`Alfred H. Siegel (Circuit City)
`IPP TOTAL
`
`
`
`Pages
`3
`982
`24
`74
`1
`1,084 pages
`
`
`
`Even accounting for natively produced documents, these figures do not change substantially.
`
`Defendants have been discussing these discovery response deficiencies with the Plaintiffs in meet and
`
`confer communications.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT – MASTER FILE NO.: 3:14-CV-03264-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 754 Filed 07/01/15 Page 8 of 24
`
`
`
`Nonetheless, Defendants do not believe any dispute regarding Plaintiffs’ responses is ripe for
`
`Court resolution at this time and will continue to work to meet and confer with Plaintiffs.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Statement
`
`DPPs: DPPs do not believe there is any discovery dispute relating to their document
`
`productions to date that is ripe for Court resolution at this time. The productions identified above
`
`pertain to the respective representative Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ productions of their electronic
`
`transactional data (from Dependable Component Supply Corp. [“Dependable”] and Walker
`
`Component Group, Inc. [“Walker”]) and records indicating purchases of capacitors (from Chip-Tech
`
`Co., Ltd. [“Chip-Tech”] and eIQ Energy, Inc. [“eIQ”]) from the Defendants. The page count
`
`information noted above is misleading with regard to Dependable and Walker’s respective
`
`productions; they produced Excel spreadsheets identifying records of their capacitors purchases from
`
`Defendants. Dependable’s spreadsheet contains data for 991 purchases of capacitors in varying
`
`quantities. Walker’s spreadsheet contains data pertaining to 1,792 purchases of capacitors in varying
`
`quantities.
`
`DPPs have readily met and conferred with Defendants regarding their request for production,
`
`and that process is nearly complete. DPPs’ production of ESI will begin in due course. Pursuant to
`
`the Parties’ agreed-upon schedule (Dkt. 730), both Plaintiffs and Defendants have until October 15,
`
`2015 to substantially complete production of documents responsive to the other side’s document
`
`requests. DPPs’ efforts are well under way.
`
`IPPs: Regarding IPPs Michael Brooks, CAE Sound, Steve Wong, and Toy-Knowlogy, Inc.,
`
`IPPs have produced all non-objectionable, responsive documents in their possession, custody, or
`
`control. There are no outstanding transactional data sets for these IPPs. Regarding IPP Alfred H.
`
`Siegel, the Liquidating Trustee of the Circuit City Stores, Inc. (“Circuit City”) Liquidating Trust,
`
`Defendants’ reference to the page count of the production is misleading. As the parties have
`
`acknowledged above, page counts dependent on Bates numbers sometimes misrepresent native files,
`
`each of which receives a single Bates number. Although Mr. Siegel has only produced one document,
`
`it is a 61-page Excel spreadsheet of transactional data detailing 4,989 capacitor purchases of varying
`
`quantities. The transactional data fields include manufacturer, part number, part description, price,
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT – MASTER FILE NO.: 3:14-CV-03264-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 754 Filed 07/01/15 Page 9 of 24
`
`
`
`quantity, vendor, purchase date, and invoice number, among other categories of information. Mr.
`
`Siegel will produce non-transactional data once the parties have negotiated custodians and search
`
`terms.
`
`Defendants’ June 23, 2015 e-mail to IPPs regarding IPPs’ discovery responses was extensive and
`
`included a number of specific questions for each IPP. IPPs have been investigating the answers to
`
`these questions and provided responses today for CAE Sound, Toy-Knowlogy Inc., and Messrs.
`
`Brooks and Wong. IPPs also provided a proposed custodian list for Circuit City today. IPPs are still
`
`investigating the answers to questions for Circuit City and will provide responses shortly.
`
`
`
`C. Defendants’ Transactional Data Productions
`Plaintiffs’ Statement
`
`Certain Defendants have not yet produced transactional data to Plaintiffs because they have
`
`not appeared in the case, because they only recently appeared in the case, or because they initially
`
`had responded to Plaintiffs’ Complaints with a jurisdictional challenge. All Defendants have, to
`
`some degree, produced transactional data, save Defendant Matsuo Electronic Co., Ltd. This is
`
`because the transactional data that Matsuo had prepared to produce by the parties' agreed-upon
`
`deadline contained files that were not readable due to regional computer system and software
`
`differences. Matsuo has provided updates to Plaintiffs on its process of resolving these technical
`
`issues and intends to produce its transactional data by July 7, 2015. The Plaintiffs have been working
`
`with Matsuo on this issue.
`
`As noted above, fourteen Defendants have made transactional data productions. Organizing,
`
`processing, and analyzing that data has already proven massively labor-intensive—and massively
`
`expensive. Defendants have provided the data in a wide range of data formats, often generated using
`
`queries that vary dramatically in their approach and scope. A great deal of the data, including in key
`
`aspects such as customer names and product information, is in Japanese and will require translation.
`
`For about half the Defendants, the data does not reliably state the quantities sold. For about half the
`
`Defendants, the currency in which transactions are denominated is often unclear. Only two
`
`Defendants have provided product information sufficient for Plaintiffs to identify which transactions
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT – MASTER FILE NO.: 3:14-CV-03264-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 754 Filed 07/01/15 Page 10 of 24
`
`
`
`concern Capacitor product sales relevant to this litigation. For only two Defendants is it clear that the
`
`data include reliable Ship-To information. The set of start dates for Defendants’ datasets is: 1997,
`
`1999, 2000, 2003, 2004, 2007, and in one case (AVX), 2013. The end dates range from 2013 to 2015.
`
`Additionally, Defendant Nippon Chemi-Con Corp., which had initially challenged jurisdiction, has
`
`indicated it will not be in a position to produce transactional data until the end of July.
`
`DPPs first submitted questions regarding Defendants’ production of transactional data on May
`
`29, 2015. Since that time, Defendants have continued to produce transactional data. DPPs have
`
`followed up with additional questions, including several additional sets submitted as recently as June
`
`19, 2015. To date, the Nichicon Defendants and AVX Corporation are alone in having provided
`
`substantive responses to DPPs’ transactional data questions—although DPPs’ first question to AVX
`
`concerned its failure to provide data for any time prior to 2013, eliciting the response that AVX
`
`intends to supplement its prior production of transactional data. Other than Nichicon, Taitsu and
`
`AVX, no other Defendant has provided substantive responses to DPPs’ data questions.
`
`Given the expert work necessarily involved in analyzing the data, and the scope of the issues
`
`involved in ensuring the data is complete and working with the various sets of transactional data,
`
`DPPs have requested calls with Defendants and persons knowledgeable about the Defendant’s
`
`transactional data to ensure a prompt and cooperative approach to these important issues. DPPs have
`
`also proposed to Defendants a protocol for identifying mutually-agreeable English-language
`
`translations of certain terms appearing in the data, such as customer names and product descriptions.
`Defendants’ Statement
`
`Defendants do not believe there is any discovery dispute relating to the production of
`
`transactional data that is ripe for Court resolution at this time. Defendants are complying with the
`
`dates they have agreed upon with the Plaintiffs, including dates related to the production of
`
`transactional data and responses to Plaintiffs’ questions about that data. In some instances,
`
`Defendants have provided information well in advance of the agreed-upon deadline. To the extent
`
`particular Defendants have not yet produced transactional data, Plaintiffs acknowledge there are
`
`reasons for that (e.g., they only recently appeared in the case, or discovery was stayed due to a
`
`jurisdictional challenge) and those Defendants are in the process of meeting and conferring with
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT – MASTER FILE NO.: 3:14-CV-03264-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 754 Filed 07/01/15 Page 11 of 24
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs on the issue. The deadline for initial answers to Plaintiffs’ questions about transactional
`
`data is July 17, 2015, and Defendants intend to meet that date.
`
`As Plaintiffs acknowledge, three Defendants have already responded to Plaintiffs’ questions
`
`about their transactional data, even though responses are not due until July 17, 2015 (Doc. 730).
`
`Plaintiffs’ assertion that only three Defendants have provided substantive responses to Plaintiffs’
`
`transactional questions implies that they have posed such questions to all Defendants, which they
`
`have not. For example, Soshin and Rubycon received questions about their transactional data from
`
`Plaintiffs on the evening of July 1, 2015, the same date this Joint Status Conference Statement was
`
`due. Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ questions about Defendants’ transactional data have come in waves, so
`
`Plaintiffs’ characterization of the number of Defendants that have responded to Plaintiffs’ most recent
`
`data questions is misleading and inaccurate. For example, NEC TOKIN has answered several rounds
`
`of Plaintiffs’ questions about NEC TOKIN’s transactional data, and NEC TOKIN will have
`
`responded to the most recent round of Plaintiffs’ questions by the Case Management Conference.
`
`The fact that “organizing, processing, and analyzing” transactional data spanning over a
`
`decade from many defendants is complicated should come as no surprise to Plaintiffs’ experienced
`
`counsel. Defendants’ transactional data is being produced as it is kept in the ordinary course of
`
`business. Defendants are different companies and have different systems for maintaining their data.
`AVX. With respect to AVX’s production of transactional data, AVX conferred with DPPs
`
`about transactional data on March 23, 2015. AVX stated its understanding that DPPs were interested
`
`only in transactional data relating to the Tantalum capacitor assets that AVX purchased in 2013, and
`
`committed to producing that data. AVX produced that data on April 27. DPPs did not request
`
`transactional data for any other time period until the evening of Friday, May 29, three days after this
`
`Court had dismissed AVX from the case. On June 23, one week after DPPs amended their complaint
`
`to again include AVX, AVX committed to produce that additional data and also answered DPPs’
`
`questions about its prior data production. AVX is in the process of producing the additional
`
`requested data. DPPs have no reasonable basis to complain about AVX’s discovery efforts.
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT – MASTER FILE NO.: 3:14-CV-03264-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 754 Filed 07/01/15 Page 12 of 24
`
`
`
`D. Plaintiffs’ Transactional Data Productions
`Defendants’ Statement
`
`Only two DPP entities have produced transactional data, and other DPPs have produced no
`
`transactional data. Defendants anticipate meeting and conferring with DPPs on this issue.
`
`IPPs have produced a limited amount of transactional data and it is unclear whether this
`
`represents all of the responsive transactional data all of the IPPs have. Defendants have been
`
`discussing this issue with the IPPs in meet and confer communications.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Statement
`
`DPPs: Representative Plaintiffs Dependable and Walker have substantially produced
`
`electronic transactional data pertaining to their direct purchases of capacitors from the Defendants.
`
`Representative Plaintiffs Chip-Tech and eIQ Energy have also substantially produced their records
`
`indicating their purchases of capacitors from Defendants. Chip-Tech and eIQ Energy do not have
`
`electronic transactional data like Dependable and Walker, but what they have produced constitutes
`
`their direct purchase records. Defendants’ counsel who have participated in the parties’ meet and
`
`confers regarding DPPs’ discovery responses are aware of the differences regarding the direct
`
`purchase data produced. Accordingly, Defendants’ representation above that “only two DPP entities
`
`have produced transactional data” is misleading and incorrect.
`
`IPPs: IPPs Michael Brooks, CAE Sound, Steve Wong, and Toy-Knowlogy, Inc. have
`
`produced all transactional data in their possession, custody, or control. There are outstanding
`
`transactional data sets. Regarding IPP Alfred H. Siegel, as stated above, Mr. Siegel produced a 61-
`
`page Excel spreadsheet of transactional data detailing 4,989 capacitor purchases of varying
`
`quantities. The transactional data includes fields such as manufacturer, part number, part description,
`
`price, quantity, vendor, purchase date, and invoice number, among others. IPPs are in the process of
`
`confirming with Mr. Siegel whether this spreadsheet contains all of Circuit City’s capacitor purchases
`
`during the class period and expect to have confirmation of this shortly.
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT – MASTER FILE NO.: 3:14-CV-03264-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 754 Filed 07/01/15 Page 13 of 24
`
`
`
`E. Defendants’ Other Discovery Responses
`Plaintiffs’ Statement
`
`In the last Joint Status Conference Statement, Plaintiffs noted that Defendants had failed to
`
`provide satisfactory answers to DPPs’ First Set of Interrogatories, either because the responses were
`
`incomplete or because they consistently responded with reference to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d) but cited
`
`only general types of documents or information to be produced rather than identifying responsive
`
`documents with specificity, as that Rule contemplates.
`
`As of that filing, only Taitsu, Rubycon, and Shinyei had served amended or supplemental
`
`responses to DPPs’ First Set of Interrogatories. Shinyei has also provided supplemental responses to
`
`IPPs’ first set of interrogatories. Since then, ELNA, KEMET, NEC TOKIN, Nitsuko, Soshin, and
`
`Hitachi have served amended or supplemental responses as well. No other Defendant has done so.
`
`Defendants’ Statement
`
`Defendants do not believe there is any discovery dispute relating to the DPPs’ First Set of
`
`Interrogatories that is ripe for Court resolution at this time. Defendants are amending their responses
`
`as appropriate and as they gather relevant facts and produce identifiable documents related to specific
`
`Interrogatories. To the extent Plaintiffs have concerns about any particular Defendant’s responses,
`
`Plaintiffs should meet and confer with that Defendant in an attempt to resolve the issue.
`
`
`IV. CASE MANAGEMENT ISSUES
`A. Discovery Dispute Regarding Defendants’ Production of Materials Produced to Foreign
`Antitrust Authorities
`
`The parties are at an impasse regarding Plaintiffs’ requests for production of documents
`
`pertaining to materials Defendants produced to foreign antitrust authorities. Plaintiffs intend to file a
`
`discovery letter on this matter in the near term. Defendants plan to respond after reviewing Plaintiffs’
`
`letter.
`
`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 STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT – MASTER FILE NO.: 3:14-CV-03264-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 754 Filed 07/01/15 Page 14 of 24
`
`
`
`B. Joint Request to Reset the Hearing Date on Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs’
`FACs
`
`The Court’s Amended Scheduling Order (Dkt. 735) sets Wednesday, September 16, 2015 as the
`
`hearing date for any of the Defend