Case3:14-cv-03264-JD Document891 Filed09/23/15 Page1 of 37
`
`
`Joseph R. Saveri (State Bar No. 130064)
`Andrew M. Purdy (State Bar No. 261912)
`Matthew S. Weiler (State Bar No. 236052)
`James G. Dallal (State Bar No. 277826)
`Ryan J. McEwan (State Bar No. 285595)
`JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
`555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210
`San Francisco, California 94111
`Telephone:
`(415) 500-6800
`Facsimile:
`(415) 395-9940
`E-mails:
`jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
`apurdy@saverilawfirm.com
`mweiler@saverilawfirm.com
`jdallal@saverilawfirm.com
`rmcewan@saverilawfirm.com
`
`
`Interim Lead Counsel for Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs
`
`
`Joseph W. Cotchett (State Bar No. 36324)
`Steven N. Williams (State Bar No. 175489)
`Adam J. Zapala (State Bar No. 245748)
`Elizabeth Tran (State Bar No. 280502)
`COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
`840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
`Burlingame, CA 94010
`Telephone: (650) 697-6000
`Facsimile:
`(650) 697-0577
`E-mails:
`jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
`
`swilliams@cpmlegal.com
`
`azapala@cpmlegal.com
`
`etran@cpmlegal.com
`
`Interim Lead Counsel for Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs
`
`[Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page]
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`IN RE CAPACITORS ANTITRUST
`LITIGATION
`
`
`THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ALL
`ACTIONS
`
`
`
` Master File No.: 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`
`JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE
`STATEMENT
`
`Hearing:
`
`Date:
`Time:
`Place:
`Judge:
`
`September 30, 2015
`10:00 a.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
`
`

`
`Case3:14-cv-03264-JD Document891 Filed09/23/15 Page2 of 37
`
`
`
`In advance of the Case Status Conference set by the Court for Wednesday, September 30,
`
`2015, at 10:00 a.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 PARTIES’ LAST STATUS CONFERENCE
`
`This Court held a previous Status Conference on July 8, 2015 (Dkt. 774). At the July 8, 2015
`
`status conference, and in the Court’s subsequent Minute Entry, the Court directed DPPs to file a
`
`second amended complaint, with amendments limited to including certain Flextronics’ allegations, by
`
`July 17, 2015.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`On July 15, 2015, this Court entered the parties’ Stipulated Order Regarding Electronically
`
`11
`
`Stored Information (“ESI”) (Dkt. 782).
`
`12
`
`13
`
`On July 16, 2015, Defendants AVX Corporation, Fujitsu Limited, Hitachi Chemical Co.
`
`America, Ltd., and the Holy Stone Defendants moved to dismiss DPPs’ First Amended Complaint
`
`14
`
`(Dkts. 787, 788, 789, 792).
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`On the same date, “Certain Defendants”2 and Hitachi Chemical Co. America, Ltd., filed
`
`motions to dismiss the IPPs’ Second Consolidated Complaint (Dkts. 791, 793).
`
`
`
`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 Panasonic
`Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America, SANYO Electric Co., Ltd., SANYO North
`America Corporation, Soshin Electric Co., Ltd., Soshin Electronics of America, Inc., and Nitsuko
`Electronics Corporation 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.
`
`2 ELNA Co. Ltd., ELNA America, Inc., Hitachi Chemical Co., Ltd., Hitachi Chemical Company
`America, Ltd., Hitachi AIC Incorporated, Matsuo Electric Co., Ltd., NEC TOKIN Corporation, NEC
`TOKIN America, Inc., Nichicon Corporation, Nichicon (America) Corporation, Nitsuko Electronics
`Corp., Okaya Electric Industries Co., Ltd., Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North
`America, SANYO Electric Co., Ltd., SANYO North America Corp., Rubycon Corporation, Rubycon
`America Inc., Shinyei Technology Co., Ltd., Shinyei Capacitor Co., Ltd., Soshin Electric Co., Ltd.,
`Taitsu Corporation, United Chemi-Con, Inc., and Nippon Chemi-Con Corporation (collectively,
`“Certain Defendants”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case3:14-cv-03264-JD Document891 Filed09/23/15 Page3 of 37
`
`
`
`On July 22, 2015, DPPs and Flextronics International USA, Inc. (“Flextronics”) filed the
`
`DPPs Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 799-4 (redacted), the “SAC”), into which Flextronics’s
`
`allegations were incorporated pursuant to the Court’s July 9, 2015 Order (Dkt. 774).
`
`On July 29, 2015, Defendants Fujitsu Limited, Hitachi Chemical Co. America, Ltd., and the
`
`Holy Stone Defendants all filed supplemental motions to dismiss the DPPs’ Second Amended
`
`Complaint to address Flextronics’s allegations (Dkts. 817, 818, 819). On the date of this status
`
`conference, these motions will be fully briefed and argument will be heard on each of them, save
`
`Fujitsu Limited’s motion (see below).
`
`Also on July 29, 2015, Toshin Kogyo Co., Ltd., without counsel, filed a motion to dismiss the
`
`IPPs’ complaint (Dkt. 816). On August 12, 2015, IPPs filed a motion to strike on the basis that
`
`Toshin Kogyo is unrepresented (Dkt. 852). Those motions remain pending before the Court.
`
`On August 6, 2015, all Defendants, save those further moving to dismiss the DPPs’ and IPPs’
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`operative complaints, filed their answers.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`On August 7, 2015, Plaintiffs and Defendants Shinyei Kaisha, Shinyei Technology Co., Ltd.,
`
`Shinyei Capacitor Co., Ltd., and Shinyei Corporation of America, Inc. (“Shinyei”) submitted a
`
`dispute to the Court concerning “defendant-specific” search terms (Dkt. 850). On August 20, 2015,
`
`this Court overruled Shinyei’s objections to Plaintiffs’ proposed “defendant-specific” search terms
`
`18
`
`(Dkt. 857).
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`On September 2, 2015, Flextronics filed its Motion to Compel and Modify (Dkt. 869). On the
`
`date of this status conference, this motion will be fully briefed and argument will be heard.
`
`On September 10, 2015, Defendant Fujitsu Limited filed a stipulation and proposed order
`
`seeking a stay of the litigation pending the completion of its settlement with the DPPs (Dkt. 879).
`
`On September 22, 2015, the parties submitted a proposed stipulation regarding the discovery
`
`24
`
`of information from third-parties (Dkt. 887).
`
`Also on September 22, 2015, DPPs and Defendant Nissei Electric Co., Ltd. (“Nissei”) filed a
`
`Stipulation (Dkt. 888) deeming the SAC served on Nissei via its counsel effective September 21,
`
`2015 and extending the deadline for Nissei to respond to the SAC until November 20, 2015.
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case3:14-cv-03264-JD Document891 Filed09/23/15 Page4 of 37
`
`
`II.
`
`REPORT ON DISCOVERY MATTERS
`
`A. Report on Defendants’ Transactional Sales Data
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Statement
`
`DPPs: DPPs wish to apprise the Court of the status of DPPs’ efforts with respect to the
`
`transactional sales data and the impact it will likely have on the litigation schedule. In summary,
`
`DPPs have a time consuming, mammoth task with respect to the organization and analysis of
`
`Defendants’ transaction sales data into a single sales database. DPPs have worked diligently on these
`
`data issues and have already expended hundreds of man-hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars
`
`in the effort. The work is well underway but will almost assuredly take much longer than originally
`
`contemplated to complete. DPPs have been working collaboratively with Defendants3 to answer
`
`questions, but the work is far from complete. DPPS therefore ask the Court to reset the deadlines for
`
`class certification to reflect the practical realities of this work to a date approximately six months
`
`later than the current February 16, 2016 date. Significantly, DPPs envision no impact to other aspects
`
`of the schedule and expect the litigation to continue apace with respect to the completion of briefing
`
`on FTAIA issues, the completion of merits discovery and other case deadlines.
`
`Plaintiffs have retained one of the leading econometric firms in the United States, possessing
`
`experience in dozens of antitrust cases, including many requiring the kind of effort and expertise
`
`required here. DPPs have pursued production of transactional data since the very beginning of the
`
`case and indeed requested the production of such material at virtually the first opportunity. Plaintiffs
`
`have devoted many hours of attorney time and made a significant financial investment in ensuring
`
`this work is done efficiently and effectively. But the volume of the data produced, cost in both time
`
`and financial expense of translating these materials, persistent deficiencies in production of reliable
`
`product and customer information, and wide variation in the level of cooperation and compliance by
`
`Defendants have posed major obstacles to developing a reliable dataset suitable for determining the
`
`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
`
`scope and impact of Defendants’ price-fixing activity.
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`3 Issues with respect to NCC and UCC are discussed infra.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case3:14-cv-03264-JD Document891 Filed09/23/15 Page5 of 37
`
`
`
`Some of the difficulties arise from the nature of the commerce at issue. Capacitors are
`
`relatively low-cost, high-volume products, and the cartel that fixed and raised their prices involved
`
`over 20 companies, many of them sprawling global corporations, and extended across more than a
`
`decade. In raw data, Defendants’ transactional data adds up to be 250 GB in total spread across
`
`30,000 files. Among the 21 families of named Defendant companies, 17 have produced transactional
`
`data. The datasets cover sales to tens of thousands of customers, and depending on how far back a
`
`given Defendants’ transactional data is retained, these data sets can cover anywhere from 8 to 14
`
`years for each of these corporate entities. In addition, because most Defendants offer a wide variety
`
`of Capacitor products, many of them equivalent across companies but assigned different product
`
`codes unique to the particular manufacturer, the datasets presently contain over 400,000 unique
`
`product codes across all Defendants which can be grouped or organized by category or type upon
`
`receipt of the necessary information regarding the products. So far, in the cases where Defendants
`
`have provided product information, as many have, they have generally done so only by supplying
`
`TIFF or PDF image files containing catalogs or collections of single-page product specification files
`
`pertaining to a single product—formats that prevent analysts from running searches or organizing the
`
`information. And more often than not, Defendants have produced customer and product information
`
`in languages other than English—mostly Japanese, but also Korean and Chinese. And even where the
`
`information is in English or Plaintiffs have translated the material, the information varies
`
`significantly in its completeness, accuracy, and accessibility from Defendant-to-Defendant and
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`dataset-to-dataset.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`In a June 23, 2015 letter to all Defendants’ counsel, DPPs proposed a process for resolving
`
`transactional data issues via sets of informal written questions and follow-up conversations directly
`
`between Plaintiffs’ data experts and people knowledgeable about Defendants’ data, with the goal that
`
`the parties could avoid expending resources on pointless argument over the basic meaning and
`
`contents of the data. DPPs also proposed that they would translate non-English materials in the first
`
`instance, after which Defendants would confirm the accuracy of the translations. DPPs meanwhile
`
`had presented their first wave of data questions, covering ten Defendants families’ transaction-level
`
`28
`
`data, on May 29, 2015. The majority of the Defendants have agreed to proceed in this manner and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case3:14-cv-03264-JD Document891 Filed09/23/15 Page6 of 37
`
`
`have provided good faith responses to questions Plaintiffs’ counsel have submitted in writing. In
`
`addition, the parties agreed in their June 3, 2015 Joint Statement Regarding Proposed Case Schedule
`
`(“Joint Statement,” Dkt. 730), adopted by the Court in its June 8, 2015 Amended Scheduling Order
`
`(Dkt. 735), that Defendants would by August 1, 2015 answer data questions Plaintiffs submitted by
`
`June 19, 2015, and that they would answer data questions posed later “on a rolling basis as soon as
`
`the relevant information becomes available without delay, and no later than five weeks after the new
`
`transactional data questions were received by Defendants.” Jt. Stmt., Dkt. 730, n. 2, p. 1-2.
`
`As is typically the case, answers to questions often beget more questions. Defendants have
`
`continued to respond to DPPs’ data questions and have, in some instances, offered up personnel at the
`
`Defendant companies to answer questions in real time. The process has yielded important responses
`
`on inquiries concerning such important matters as the data files containing the transaction-level data,
`
`the meaning of various alternative address and location fields, how to interpret customer codes to
`
`reveal the identity and location of purchasers, means for identifying sales of the Capacitor products at
`
`issue in the case, and the reason for gaps or unfilled fields in the datasets.
`
`Unfortunately, Defendant Nippon Chemi-Con (“NCC”) and its U.S. subsidiary Defendant
`
`United Chemi-Con (“UCC”) stand alone in providing completely inadequate and deficient responses
`
`to DPP experts’ questions. DPPs submitted these questions via email on August 18, 2015. On the day
`
`before this filing, Tuesday, September 22—also the date on which the five-week response period
`
`stated in the Joint Statement elapsed—counsel for NCC and UCC submitted their responses via email
`
`to DPPs. In those responses, NCC and UCC flatly refused to provide any information about how to
`
`link up fields in their transactional datasets with their customer and product information. NCC and
`
`UCC responded to requests for confirmation of preliminary translations with the observation that
`
`“NCC is not a certified translation service and will not serve that function for the Plaintiffs. NCC
`
`provided materials as they existed in the ordinary course of business.” The other responses are no
`
`better. Question 23 to NCC may offer the most telling example of NCC and UCC’s overall disregard
`
`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
`
`for their obligation to provide data in usable form:
`
`27
`
`28
`
`“23. How are the values in the UnitPrice field calculated? What units is it
`expressed in? Is it per individual capacitor?
`
`“Response: 建値単価 (tatene-tanka), translated by Plaintiffs as “Unit Price,”
`refers to the sales price per one unit.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case3:14-cv-03264-JD Document891 Filed09/23/15 Page7 of 37
`
`
`Defendant Nippon Chem-Con Corporation’s Responses to Plaintiffs’ Transactional Data Questions,
`
`13. The complete refusal on the part of the Nippon Chemi-Con Defendants to provide any
`
`meaningful response to DPPs’ data questions, and their apparent unwillingness to provide basic
`
`factual information about the structure and content of its datasets, has deprived Plaintiffs of the
`
`ability to determine even the most basic details about the NCC/UCC commerce at issue in this case,
`
`including the identity and locations of customers and the products involved. Such intransigence
`
`presents a significant impediment to the prosecution of Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs will meet and
`
`confer with NCC and UCC concerning these deficiencies, which are significant given that NCC and
`
`UCC comprise a significant amount of the data Plaintiffs need to compile.
`
`Other Defendants have provided much more satisfactory responses. Nevertheless there is
`
`much work still to be done. The following table summarizes the progress made on analyzing
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`Defendants’ transactional data to date:
`
`13
`
`Defendant
`
`Data Questions
`
`Product Data
`
`Customer Data Missing Data
`
`Partial responses
`9/8 to 8/13 set.
`Answered.
`
`Incomplete.
`
`Incomplete.
`
`14
`
`AVX
`
`ELNA
`Fujitsu
`Hitachi
`
`Holy Stone
`
`KEMET
`
`Matsuo
`
`NEC TOKIN
`
`Nichicon
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Some product &
`customer info.
`Address info.
`Insufficient.
`PDF only.
`No transactional data produced to date.4
`Await responses Await responses Some product &
`customer info.
`Some years
`Pending
`PDF only; linking
`missing sales.
`translations.
`file unidentified.
`Await responses. Await responses. No issues at this
`time.
`Await responses. Await responses. No issues at this
`time.
`No issues at this
`time.
`No issues at this
`time.
`Product &
`customer info.
`
`PDF only.
`
`Mostly PDF; need
`ranges ID’d.
`Deficient.
`
`More questions
`coming.
`More questions
`coming.
`Deficient.
`
`Answered; new
`set sent on 9/18.
`Await answers to
`8/10 questions.
`Await answers to
`8/10 questions.
`Data call follow-
`up sent 9/18.
`Answered; more
`questions coming.
`Answered; more
`questions coming.
`Nippon Chemi-Con Answered;
`Plaintiffs believe
`answer
`inadequate
`No transactional data produced to date; served with SAC on Sept. 21, 2015.
`Nissei
`
`
`4 In or around April 2009, Fujitsu sold its division responsible for manufacturing the types of
`Capacitors at issue in this case, FMD Suzhou, which had been a division of Fujitsu’s former
`subsidiary Fujitsu Media Devices, to Defendant Nichicon.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case3:14-cv-03264-JD Document891 Filed09/23/15 Page8 of 37
`
`Await answers to
`7/31 questions.
`Partial responses
`to 8/18 questions.
`
`Await responses;
`numbers only.
`PDF only;
`pending
`translations.
`Mostly PDF.
`
`Mostly PDF.
`
`PDF only.
`
`Mostly PDF.
`
`Await responses. No issues at this
`time.
`No issues at this
`time.
`
`Pending
`translations.
`
`Pending
`translations.
`
`Supplemented
`recently; analysis
`underway.
`Some customer
`info.
`Unclear; await
`call.
`
`Await answers to
`questions re 8/4
`data call.
`Incomplete
`Answered; more
`location info.
`questions coming.
`Mismatch
`Inadequate
`between data &
`responses; call
`lookup table.
`requested 9/18.
`No issues at this
`No issues at this
`Answered 7/31
`time.
`time.
`questions 9/14.
`No transactional data produced to date; appeared July 27, 2015.
`Call requested
`PDF only.
`Mismatch
`No issues at this
`9/18.
`between data &
`time.
`lookup table.
`Pending
`translations.
`
`
`Nitsuko
`
`Okaya
`
`Panasonic
`
`ROHM
`
`Rubycon
`
`Shinyei
`
`Shizuki
`Soshin
`
`Taitsu
`
`TOSHIN KOGYO
`
`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
`
`Answered; more
`questions coming.
`
`PDF only;
`pending
`translations.
`No transactional data produced to date; served but has not appeared.
`
`No issues at this
`time.
`
`At this point much work remains to be done to get Defendants’ voluminous transactional data
`
`into a useable format in preparation for filing their class certification motions on February 12, 2016.
`
`It is a very labor-intensive process that has thus far required hundreds of thousand dollars’ worth of
`
`time and expense. DPPs’ experts, along with many of the DPPs’ attorneys, have been working
`
`without interruption or delay to process and prepare the data.
`
`It is apparent that the task of the compilation of a reliable robust sales database and analysis of
`
`it will take more time than originally planned and makes it highly unlikely that the February 12, 2016
`
`deadline can be met. Based on their substantial experience in cases similar to this one, DPPs’ experts
`
`have indicated that an additional six months is needed for the work on the database to be completed,
`
`and an additional 4 months is required to analyze the data and prepare class certification reports.
`
`Accordingly, DPPs expect class certification briefs can be filed by August 1, 2016. Significantly,
`
`Plaintiffs do not request adjustment to any other aspect of the court’s schedule, including briefing on
`
`FTAIA issues, the completion of document discovery or depositions.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case3:14-cv-03264-JD Document891 Filed09/23/15 Page9 of 37
`
`
`
`Should the Court grant this request, DPPs will keep the Court informed in the interim period
`
`as to their experts’ progress.
`
`IPPs: IPPs have likewise been engaged in the laborious process of analyzing Defendants’
`
`voluminous transactional data, as well as crafting detailed questions aimed at gaining a greater
`
`understanding of that data. IPPs will not repeat the observations made by DPPs regarding this
`
`process, but largely agree with their statement.
`
`Over the summer, IPPs’ team of econometric experts translated and attempted to analyze
`
`Defendants’ transactional data. Beginning in August, pursuant to the parties’ agreement, IPPs sent
`
`out detailed correspondence containing questions about the Defendants’ data. In many cases, these
`
`letters are over twenty-pages in length and include dozens of questions about the specifics of the
`
`data—information that is critical for their econometric models. This is a difficult and time-
`
`consuming process for both Plaintiffs and Defendants.
`
`IPPs concur with DPPs’ statement that the parties will need at least an additional six months
`
`in order to prepare for class certification briefing. Added to the complexity of untangling
`
`Defendants’ data is the fact that IPPs have to undergo (and are undergoing, see infra at II C) a similar
`
`process with respect to third-party transactional data from distributors. In that regard, IPPs’
`
`econometricians have to analyze and understand the third-parties’ purchase and sales data. IPPs are
`
`vigorously pursuing both the data and answers to questions from Defendants and third-parties and
`
`will continue to do so. As this Court knows, standards for certification of antitrust cases require an
`
`intense analysis of defendants' and, in this case, third party distributors’ transactional data. As can
`
`be seen in recent class certification decisions in the Northern District, the centerpiece of antitrust
`
`class certification motions is most often the methodology used by plaintiffs' experts in analyzing the
`
`transactional data. See e.g., In re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litig, 985 F.Supp.2d 1167 (N.D.
`
`Cal. 2013) (discussing the employment compensation data at issue in case); In re Cathode Ray Tubes
`
`Antitrust Litig, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137946, Case No. C-07-5944-SC (N.D. Cal., Sept 24, 2013)
`
`(certifying the indirect purchaser class); In re Optical Disk Drive Antitrust Litig., 303 F.R.D. 311
`
`(N.D. Cal. 2014) (discussing the parties’ approach to the data). Although Plaintiffs have worked
`
`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
`
`diligently to move forward on this task in this case, the reality has been that the nature and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case3:14-cv-03264-JD Document891 Filed09/23/15 Page10 of 37
`
`
`complexity of the data produced—in foreign languages and covering a period of more than a
`
`decade—has resulted in a slower process than had been anticipated.
`
`One very practical manner in which the process can become slightly more efficient is to
`
`require Defendants to send their answers to transactional data questions to both IPPs and DPPs. This
`
`will ensure that neither IPPs nor DPPs repeat questions and will assist both in framing additional
`
`questions. Another practical solution to reduce inefficiencies in the process is to require
`
`Defendants—in any follow-up meet and confer teleconference calls regarding their answers to data
`
`questions—to have a client representative that is knowledgeable about the data attend so that they can
`
`answer real time questions from Plaintiffs’ experts.
`
`2.
`
`Defendants’ Statement
`
`Defendants strongly object to Plaintiffs’ request to delay class certification briefing an
`
`additional six months. Additional delay is unnecessary and unwarranted. Defendants produced their
`
`transactional data to Plaintiffs months ago and Plaintiffs have had ample time to identify deficiencies
`
`and/or request additional information from Defendants. As Plaintiffs admit, the majority of
`
`Defendants have responded to Plaintiffs’ questions about transactional data – some of which came as
`
`questionnaires of 20 or more pages – and continue to work in good faith to address additional
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`questions Plaintiffs may have.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`Plaintiffs’ description of the status and format of each Defendant’s transactional data
`
`production is in many cases incorrect. Plaintiffs claim that many Defendants have produced product
`
`data in “only” or “mostly” PDF format while, in fact, many Defendants have produced PDF data in
`
`addition to numerous Excel spreadsheets. For example, ELNA and ROHM have produced Excel
`
`files as well as the PDF files identified above. Plaintiffs’ characterization of Nichicon's production of
`
`Product Data as “Mostly PDF; need ranges ID’d” is similarly inaccurate. The great majority of
`
`Nichicon's production of product data was in data (standardized text or tab-delineated) format.
`
`Finally, Plaintiffs’ representations that Panasonic and Sanyo have provided their product data in
`
`“[m]ostly PDF” format is incorrect. In fact, Panasonic and Sanyo have produced the majority of their
`
`detailed product information and customer information in electronic Excel spreadsheets, along with a
`
`28
`
`few additional documents produced in PDF format that contain supplemental information. At no
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case3:14-cv-03264-JD Document891 Filed09/23/15 Page11 of 37
`
`
`point have Plaintiffs asked Defendants who provided PDF files to supplement with documents in an
`
`alternative format. As many Defendants are seeing Plaintiffs’ characterization of their productions as
`
`“incomplete,” “insufficient,” or “deficient” for the first time, Defendants are unclear about what
`
`Plaintiffs mean. Plaintiffs have never identified these deficiencies to Defendants during the meet-
`
`and-confer process, much less given Defendants the opportunity to remedy these alleged deficiencies.
`
`Additionally, the time-consuming process of assembling and analyzing transactional data is
`
`no surprise to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ counsel are experienced antitrust lawyers who are well aware of
`
`the complexities of the type of economic analysis that accompanies class certification briefing.
`
`Plaintiffs also know that each Defendant makes many different types of capacitors and that the
`
`majority of Defendants’ business records would be maintained in a foreign language. Plaintiffs are
`
`not just discovering these issues now, and are not entitled to additional time just because the analysis
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`proves to be difficult.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`An additional six months to complete “work on the database” followed by four months for
`
`additional analysis seems excessive by any measure. The Court has already extended the class
`
`certification schedule once, and Plaintiffs have not shown good cause for extending the time for class
`
`certification again. Defendants remain committed to working through any outstanding issues
`
`regarding transactional data through the meet-and-confer process and remain on track to produce
`
`additional documents and data according to the existing schedule imposed by the Court. As a result,
`
`Defendants respectfully request that the Court deny Plaintiffs’ demand for additional extensions.
`
`3.
`
`NCC/UCC’s Statement
`
`In violation of the Court’s Standing Order for Discovery in Civil Cases, ¶¶ 18-21, which
`
`require the parties to meet and confer before bringing a discovery dispute before the Court, Plaintiffs
`
`raise for the first time concerns with NCC’s and UCC’s responses to DPPs’ delayed set of
`
`transactional data questions. If Plaintiffs have an issue with NCC’s or UCC’s responses, they should
`
`discuss those issues with NCC and UCC before bothering the Court with these concerns.
`
`To the extent Plaintiffs complain about a delay, it is a delay they themselves created. This
`
`Court ordered a stay on discovery with respect to NCC on January 14, 2015, (Dkt. 514) until the
`
`28
`
`resolution of NCC’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Court lifted that stay
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case3:14-cv-03264-JD Document891 Filed09/23/15 Page12 of 37
`
`
`with its decision on the motion and order on June 11, 2015 (Dkt. 738). Following the removal of the
`
`stay, the parties met and conferred on June 16th, with NCC and UCC immediately proposing a
`
`schedule based off the Amended Scheduling Order this Court entered on June 8, 2015 (Dkt. 735).
`
`NCC and UCC memorialized this schedule in a letter to Plaintiffs on June 26th and Plaintiffs agreed
`
`to the schedule in a meet and confer on June 29th. NCC and UCC subsequently produced
`
`transactional data on July 31st. Although under the agreed-upon schedule Plaintiffs were supposed to
`
`submit their initial written questions concerning this transactional data on August 7th, DPPs did not
`
`send transactional data questions to NCC or UCC until August 18th and August 20th respectively.
`
`The IPPs sent duplicative transactional data questions just this past Friday, September 18th. In
`
`compliance with the schedule and adjusting for Plaintiffs’ 11-day delay, NCC and UCC provided
`
`responses to DPPs’ questions on September 22nd. As these facts indicate, any delay is the result of
`
`Plaintiffs’ failure to follow the agreed-upon schedule, and it is unconvincing for Plaintiffs to
`
`complain their own delay is negatively impacting their case.
`
`B. Report on the Parties’ Document Productions to Date
`
`1. Defendants’ Document Productions
`
`a. Plaintiffs’ Statement
`
`As of September 22, 2015, Defendants have produced documents as follows:
`
`Defendant Family
`AVX
`ELNA
`EPCOS
`Fujitsu
`Hitachi
`Holy Stone
`KEMET
`Matsuo
`NEC TOKIN
`Nichicon
`Nippon Chemi-Con
`Nissei
`Nitsuko
`Okaya
`Panasonic
`ROHM
`Rubycon
`Shinyei
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pages
`122,077
`354,390
`4,662
`0
`54,794
`5,284
`31,830
`42,928
`190,432
`79,937
`459,143
`--
`22
`30,302
`349,432
`73,335
`622,610
`49,365
`
`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
`
`

`
`Case3:14-cv-03264-JD Document891 Filed09/23/15 Page13 of 37
`
`Shizuki
`Soshin
`Taitsu
`TOSHIN KOGYO
`TOTAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`--
`273,062
`50,748
`--
`2,424,256
`
`At this time, only three issues related to Defendants’ document productions warrant the
`
`
`
`
`
`Court’s attention. See infra Section III.
`
`b. Defendants’ Statement
`
`Other than those identified in Section III, Defendants do not believe there are any disputes
`
`regarding document discovery that are ripe for resolution at this time. Defendants continue to work
`
`diligently to produce documents on a rolling basis and are in full compliance with the agreed-upon
`
`schedule.
`
`Defendants will note that page counts can be a misleading indicator of the volume actually
`
`produced. Many Defendants are producing natively, as demanded by Plaintiffs, so the document
`
`page counts shown in the chart above do not accurately reflect the actual pages produced, as each
`
`native image file will only show a single Bates-number even though the document is oftentimes
`
`longer than just one page.
`
`2. Plaintiffs’ Document Productions to Date
`
`a. Defendants’ Statement
`
`DPPs: Defendants remain concerned with the languid pace of DPPs’ productions in resp