Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 2347 Filed 06/14/19 Page 1 of 23
`
`[Counsel for Moving Defendants Listed on Signature Pages]
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`IN RE CAPACITORS ANTITRUST
`LITIGATION
`
`Case Nos. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`3:17-md-02801-JD
`
`CERTAIN DEFENDANTS’ JOINT
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY
`OF DR. HAL J. SINGER
`
`Date: August 29, 2019
`Time: 10:00 a.m.
`Judge: Honorable James Donato
`Courtroom 11—19th Floor
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF
`DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`All Direct Purchaser Actions,
`Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`
`All Indirect Purchaser Actions,
`Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`
`The AASI Beneficiaries’ Trust, by and Through
`Kenneth A. Welt, Liquidating Trustee, v. AVX
`Corp. et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-03472-JD
`
`Avnet, Inc., v. Hitachi Chemical Co., Ltd., et al.,
`Case No. 3:17-cv-07046-JD
`
`Benchmark Electronics, Inc. et al. v. AVX Corp.
`et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-07047-JD
`
`Arrow Electronics, Inc. v. ELNA Co., Ltd. et al.,
`Case No. 3:18-cv-02657-JD
`
`Flextronics International USA, Inc.’s Individual
`Action, Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`
`CERTAIN DEFS’ JOINT MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DR. HAL J. SINGER
`Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD; 3:17-md-02801-JD
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 2347 Filed 06/14/19 Page 2 of 23
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO THE PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 29, 2019 at 10 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the
`matter may be heard, in Courtroom 11, 19th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco,
`California, before the Honorable James Donato, the undersigned Defendants1 will and hereby do
`move the Court, under Rules 104(a) and 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, to exclude the
`proposed testimony of Dr. Hal J. Singer, expert for the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, because that
`testimony is unreliable and irrelevant as defined by those rules and the interpretation of them as
`specified by the Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
`This motion is based upon this Notice of Motion, the accompanying Memorandum of Points
`and Authorities, the Declaration of Johan E. Tatoy and the exhibits attached thereto,2 the complete
`files and records in this action, oral argument of counsel, authorities that may be presented at or
`before the hearing, and such other and further matters as this Court may consider.
`
`
`1 This motion is joined by: Nippon Chemi-Con Corporation; United Chemi-Con, Inc.; Panasonic
`Corporation; Panasonic Corporation of North America; SANYO Electric Co., Ltd.; SANYO North
`America Corporation; AVX Corporation; Matsuo Electric Co., Ltd.; Holy Stone Enterprise Co., Ltd.;
`Milestone Global Technology (D/B/A HolyStone International); Vishay Polytech Co., Ltd; Elna Co.,
`Ltd.; Elna America, Inc.; KEMET Corporation; and KEMET Electronics Corporation.
`2 “Ex. __” refers to the exhibits attached to the Declaration of Johan E. Tatoy, dated June 14, 2019.
`i
`CERTAIN DEFS’ JOINT MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DR. HAL J. SINGER
`Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD; 3:17-md-02801-JD
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 2347 Filed 06/14/19 Page 3 of 23
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION ............................................................................................... i 
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................................... iii 
`ISSUE TO BE DECIDED ..................................................................................................................... i 
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................1 
`LEGAL STANDARD ............................................................................................................................1 
`BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................................2 
`ARGUMENT .........................................................................................................................................4 
`Dr. Singer’s Testimony on “Qualitative” Evidence Is Improper and Should Be
`I. 
`Excluded. ...................................................................................................................................5 
`A.  Dr. Singer’s Evaluation of the Qualitative Evidence Is Not Based Upon Any
`Reliable Scientific Methodology And Is Unhelpful to the Trier of Fact. ...............................5 
`
`B.  Dr. Singer’s Reliance on
` Does Not Comport With Any Accepted Scientific
`Methodology, and Undermines His “Qualitative Analysis.” ..................................................9 
`Dr. Singer’s “Quantitative” Econometric Analyses Should be Excluded as Unreliable. ........12 
`II. 
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................................13 
`
`
`
`ii
`CERTAIN DEFS’ JOINT MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DR. HAL J. SINGER
`Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD; 3:17-md-02801-JD
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 2347 Filed 06/14/19 Page 4 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Page(s)
`
`AFMS LLC v. United Parcel Service Co.,
`No. 10-cv-5830, 2014 WL 12515335 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2014) .......................................................8
`Aguilar v. Int’l Longshoremen’s Union Local No. 10,
`966 F.2d 443 (9th Cir. 1992) ...........................................................................................................7
`Am. Ad Mgmt., Inc. v. GTE Corp.,
`92 F.3d 781 (9th Cir. 1996) ...........................................................................................................10
`In re Apollo Grp. Inc. Sec. Litig.,
`527 F. Supp. 2d 957 (D. Ariz. 2007) ...............................................................................................8
`In re Capacitors Antitrust Litigation,
`No. 17-md-2801 (JD), 2018 WL 5980139 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2018) ............................................7
`CFM Commc’ns, LLC v. Mitts Telecasting Co.,
`424 F. Supp. 2d 1229 (E.D. Cal. 2005)............................................................................................9
`City of Tuscaloosa v. Harcros Chems.,
`158 F.3d 548 (11th Cir. 1998) .........................................................................................................8
`Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc.,
`509 U.S. 579 (1993) ......................................................................................................................... i
`Diviero v. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co.,
`114 F.3d 851 (9th Cir. 1997) ...........................................................................................................5
`Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,
`657 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2011) ...........................................................................................................2
`Harris v. City of Chicago,
`No. 14-cv-4391, 2017 WL 3193585 (N.D. Ill. July 27, 2017) ......................................................11
`Johns v. Bayer Corp.,
`No. 09-cv-1935, 2013 WL 1498965 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2013) ......................................................8
`Kamakahi v. Am. Soc’y for Reprod. Med.,
`305 F.R.D. 164 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .....................................................................................................2
`Kammerer v. Wyeth,
`No. 8:04-cv-196, 2011 WL 5237757 (D. Neb. Nov. 1, 2011) .......................................................11
`Lust ex rel. Lust v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc.,
`89 F.3d 594, 597 (9th Cir. 1996) ...................................................................................................10
`McClellan v. I-Flow Corp.,
`710 F. Supp. 2d 1092 (D. Or. 2010) ................................................................................................5
`
`
`
`iii
`CERTAIN DEFS’ JOINT MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DR. HAL J. SINGER
`Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD; 3:17-md-02801-JD
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 2347 Filed 06/14/19 Page 5 of 23
`
`
`
`Mid-State Fertilizer Co. v. Exch. Nat. Bank of Chicago,
`877 F.2d 1333 (7th Cir. 1989) .........................................................................................................6
`In re Mirena IUD Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`169 F. Supp. 3d 396 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) ............................................................................................11
`
`Nationwide Transp. Fin. v. Cass Info. Sys., Inc.,
`523 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2008) .....................................................................................................6, 7
`Newkirk v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.,
`727 F. Supp. 2d 1006 (E.D. Wash. 2010), aff’d, 438 F. App’x 607 (9th Cir. 2011) .....................12
`Ollier v. Sweetwater Union High Sch. Dist.,
`768 F.3d 843 (9th Cir. 2014) ...........................................................................................................2
`Open Text S.A. v. Box, Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-04910 (JD), 2015 WL 349197 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2015) ...............................................2
`Oracle Am., Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Enter. Co.,
`No. 16-cv-01393 (JST), 2018 WL 6511146 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2019) ..........................................9
`In re Rezulin Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`309 F. Supp. 2d 531 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) ..............................................................................................8
`United States v. Sandoval-Mendoza,
`472 F.3d 645 (9th Cir. 2006) ...........................................................................................................2
`SourceOne Dental, Inc. v. Patterson Companies, Inc.,
`310 F. Supp. 3d 346 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) ...........................................................................................10
`U.S. Info. Sys., Inc. v. Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers Local Union No. 3,
`313 F. Supp. 2d 213 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) ..............................................................................................6
`Walker v. Contra Costa Cty.,
`No. 03-cv-3723 (THE), 2006 WL 3371438 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2006) ......................................5, 6
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`Fed. R. Evid. 702 ......................................................................................................................... passim
`George J. Stigler
`What Does an Economist Know, 33 J. Legal Educ. 311 (1983) ..................................................6, 7
`
`
`
`iv
`CERTAIN DEFS’ JOINT MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DR. HAL J. SINGER
`Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD; 3:17-md-02801-JD
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 2347 Filed 06/14/19 Page 6 of 23
`
`
`
`ISSUE TO BE DECIDED
`Whether the Court should exclude the expert report of Dr. Hal J. Singer offered by Direct
`Purchaser Plaintiffs (“DPPs”) under Rules 104(a) and 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and
`Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), because his methodology is not reliable
`and is not an accepted scientific methodology, and because Dr. Singer is not qualified to offer his
`opinions, which are unreliable and not helpful to the trier of fact.
`
`
`i
`CERTAIN DEFS’ JOINT MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DR. HAL J. SINGER
`Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD; 3:17-md-02801-JD
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 2347 Filed 06/14/19 Page 7 of 23
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION3
`Plaintiffs have put forth Dr. Hal J. Singer as one of their experts in their case against
`Defendants. Dr. Singer employs a “qualitative analysis” in which he
`
`
`
` Dr. Singer’s
`approach is decidedly not academic and has no grounding in economics. It is, in short, “junk
`science” that will serve only to confuse the jury and to take from the factual determinations that are
`clearly in their province as the ultimate finders of fact. In order to perform his so-called “qualitative
`analysis,” Dr. Singer does nothing more than
`
`
` Dr.
`
`Singer then concludes, on the basis of this “analysis” that
` Such inappropriate, unreliable, and unhelpful
`
`testimony should be excluded.
`Dr. Singer also adopts Dr. McClave’s econometric model, making only minor adjustments to
`that model, none of which addresses the model’s fundamental flaws. Dr. Singer’s econometric
`analysis should, therefore, be excluded for the reasons stated in Defendants’ Motion to Exclude the
`Proposed Expert Testimony of Dr. James T. McClave.
`LEGAL STANDARD
`Expert testimony can be admitted only if it satisfies the conditions enumerated in Federal
`Rule of Evidence 702, namely: (a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge
`will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony
`is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and
`methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
`Fed. R. Evid. 702. The Ninth Circuit has interpreted this rule to require expert testimony to be both
`
`
`3 The use of terms herein that are defined in Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment filed
`concurrently with this motion refer to the definitions set forth in that motion.
`1
`CERTAIN DEFS’ JOINT MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DR. HAL J. SINGER
`Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD; 3:17-md-02801-JD
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 2347 Filed 06/14/19 Page 8 of 23
`
`
`
`reliable and relevant to be admissible. See, e.g., Ollier v. Sweetwater Union High Sch. Dist., 768
`F.3d 843, 860 (9th Cir. 2014); Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970, 982 (9th Cir. 2011).
`Expert testimony, however, is reliable only if “the knowledge underlying it ‘has a reliable
`basis in the knowledge and experience of [the relevant] discipline.’” United States v. Sandoval-
`Mendoza, 472 F.3d 645, 654 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137,
`149 (1999); Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592 (1993) (“Daubert I”)). “[A]
`critical prerequisite is that the underlying methodology be sound. When it is not, exclusion of the
`expert’s opinion is proper.” Open Text S.A. v. Box, Inc., No. 13-cv-04910 (JD), 2015 WL 349197, at
`*2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2015) (citations omitted); see also Kamakahi v. Am. Soc’y for Reprod. Med.,
`305 F.R.D. 164, 176 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (observing that “[e]vidence should be excluded as unreliable
`if it ‘suffer[s] from serious methodological flaws,’” and granting motion to exclude Dr. Singer’s
`testimony as unreliable (quoting Obrey v. Johnson, 400 F.3d 691, 696 (9th Cir. 2005))).
`Finally, an expert must be “qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training,
`or education.” Fed. R. Evid. 702. Here, Dr. Singer employs a methodology that is beyond the scope
`of the expertise of an economist.
`
`BACKGROUND4
`DPPs retained Dr. Singer, the managing director of EconOne Research, to opine that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4 The background of this case is set forth more fully in Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`CERTAIN DEFS’ JOINT MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DR. HAL J. SINGER
`Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD; 3:17-md-02801-JD
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 2347 Filed 06/14/19 Page 9 of 23
`
`
`
`.6
`Dr. Singer’s
` Specifically, Dr. Singer
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.73 In carrying out his “qualitative analysis,” Dr. Singer
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.8
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`7
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`CERTAIN DEFS’ JOINT MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DR. HAL J. SINGER
`Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD; 3:17-md-02801-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 2347 Filed 06/14/19 Page 10 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ARGUMENT
`Dr. Singer’s “qualitative analysis” is not proper expert testimony. Dr. Singer’s “qualitative
`analysis”—which purports to find that the record evidence in this case indicates anticompetitive
`conduct—is not only unreliable, but it is not helpful to the trier of fact. Rather than undertaking the
`work of an economist, Dr. Singer attempts to step into the role of a juror and determine whether the
`evidence in this case supports a finding that anticompetitive conduct exists. Plaintiffs’ own expert
`admits that this is not economic testimony. Instead, Dr. Singer’s testimony is a blatant attempt to
`lend an aura of expertise to a topic the jury should properly consider independently: examination of
`
`4
`CERTAIN DEFS’ JOINT MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DR. HAL J. SINGER
`Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD; 3:17-md-02801-JD
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 2347 Filed 06/14/19 Page 11 of 23
`
`
`
`the record evidence in this case, and applying the law to that evidence. Further, as to his testimony
`about the topics that the Department of Justice considers in evaluating anticompetitive conduct, Dr.
`Singer does not rely upon reliable sources that reflect internal DOJ policies, and that analysis is not
`based on any scientific methodology.
`
`I.
`
`DR. SINGER’S TESTIMONY ON “QUALITATIVE” EVIDENCE IS IMPROPER
`AND SHOULD BE EXCLUDED.
`Dr. Singer employs a “qualitative analysis” that is nowhere to be found in any scholarly text,
`and cannot be replicated by anyone other than Dr. Singer. In particular, Dr. Singer apparently
`
`
` Such an
`“analysis” will serve only to confuse the jury as Dr. Singer lends his “expertise” to
`
` According to Dr.
`
`
`
`. This analysis is decidedly legal in
`nature, rather than economic, and should be firmly in the province of the fact-finder, not expert
`testimony.
`
`Singer, he
`
`A.
`
`Dr. Singer’s Evaluation of the Qualitative Evidence Is Not Based Upon Any
`Reliable Scientific Methodology And Is Unhelpful to the Trier of Fact.
`Expert testimony must be useful to a finder of fact by deploying specialized knowledge and
`skills to aid in the interpretation of evidence. See Diviero v. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co., 114 F.3d
`851, 853 (9th Cir. 1997). In other words, an expert’s opinion must do more than the average juror
`could (or should) do. See Walker v. Contra Costa Cty., No. 03-cv-3723 (THE), 2006 WL 3371438,
`at *5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2006) (excluding expert testimony when there was “no showing that [the
`expert’s] opinions flow from specialized expertise beyond the ken of the average juror”); McClellan
`v. I-Flow Corp., 710 F. Supp. 2d 1092, 1136 (D. Or. 2010) (“It is well established that expert
`testimony is not helpful if it simply addresses lay matters which the jury is capable of understanding
`and deciding without the expert’s help.”). Furthermore, an expert witness’s legal conclusions are,
`
`5
`CERTAIN DEFS’ JOINT MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DR. HAL J. SINGER
`Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD; 3:17-md-02801-JD
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 2347 Filed 06/14/19 Page 12 of 23
`
`
`
` Dr. Singer
`
` According to Dr. Singer,
`
`and should be, properly excluded. See Nationwide Transp. Fin. v. Cass Info. Sys., Inc., 523 F.3d
`1051, 1058 & 1060 (9th Cir. 2008). Dr. Singer’s evaluation of the qualitative evidence violates each
`of these principles.
`Dr. Singer opines that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` is
` Dr. Singer’s
`not based on specialized knowledge; the jury could (and should) do this on its own. Dr. Singer’s
`discussion of the evidence, and his conclusion that
`
`, is thus not proper expert testimony, and will serve only to confuse the jury
`on the ultimate legal issues of the case. See, e.g., Walker, 2006 WL 3371438, at *5; Nationwide
`Transp. Fin., 523 F.3d at 1058 (quoting Hangarter v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 373 F.3d
`998, 1016 (9th Cir. 2004)) (“[A]n expert witness cannot give an opinion as to her legal conclusion,
`i.e., an opinion on an ultimate issue of law.”).
` demonstrates his misunderstanding of his
`Dr. Singer’s purported
`role as an expert. It is for the jury to determine whether, for example,
`
`
`
` See, e.g., Mid-State Fertilizer Co. v. Exch. Nat. Bank of
`Chicago, 877 F.2d 1333, 1340 (7th Cir. 1989) (expert “gave a legal rather than an economic
`opinion” when “he examined materials produced in discovery and drew inferences from the record,
`speaking in legal rather than economic terms”); U.S. Info. Sys., Inc. v. Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers
`Local Union No. 3, 313 F. Supp. 2d 213, 239–40 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (expert may not usurp “the role of
`the jury in applying that law to the facts before it”); see also George J. Stigler, What Does an
`Economist Know, 33 J. Legal Educ. 311 (1983) (“A reasonable man, and often even an economist,
`
`6
`CERTAIN DEFS’ JOINT MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DR. HAL J. SINGER
`Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD; 3:17-md-02801-JD
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 2347 Filed 06/14/19 Page 13 of 23
`
`
`
`would say that the documents seemed to present a conclusive proof of collusive behavior. The
`economist, however, would have no professional basis for reaching such a conclusion: he has no
`special skill in reading documents and relating them to actual behavior. In particular his skill in
`document interpretation is on average inferior to that of a lawyer.”);
`
`
`
`
`
` For this reason alone, Dr. Singer’s
` is properly
`“qualitative analysis” as to
`excluded. See In re Capacitors Antitrust Litigation, No. 17-md-2801 (JD), 2018 WL 5980139, at
`*11 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2018) (noting that an expert’s opinion that “defendants engaged in the
`alleged conspiracy” is not a topic the Court would likely permit expert testimony about at trial);
`Nationwide Transp. Fin., 523 F.3d at 1058–60 (explaining that experts cannot “invade[] the province
`of the trial judge,” and “[u]nder either [Rule 701 or Rule 702], evidence that merely tells the jury
`what result to reach is not sufficiently helpful to the trier of fact to be admissible” (citations
`omitted)); see also Aguilar v. Int’l Longshoremen’s Union Local No. 10, 966 F.2d 443, 447 (9th Cir.
`1992) (no expert opinion admissible on questions of law).
`Moreover, Dr. Singer’s
` Dr. Singer’s
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`CERTAIN DEFS’ JOINT MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DR. HAL J. SINGER
`Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD; 3:17-md-02801-JD
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 2347 Filed 06/14/19 Page 14 of 23
`
`
`
`.
`
`
`. Instead of offering helpful testimony, Dr. Singer
`. See City of Tuscaloosa v. Harcros Chems., 158 F.3d
`548, 565 (11th Cir. 1998) (Dr. McClave’s “characterizations of documentary evidence as reflective
`of collusion” do not assist the jury); Johns v. Bayer Corp., No. 09-cv-1935, 2013 WL 1498965, at
`*28 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2013) (“[T]o the extent an expert simply rehashes otherwise admissible
`evidence about which he has no personal knowledge, such evidence—taken on its own—is
`inadmissible.”); In re Rezulin Prods. Liab. Litig., 309 F. Supp. 2d 531, 541 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (“Rule
`702 ensures that expert witnesses will not testify about lay matters . . . . Examples of expert
`testimony that courts have excluded on this basis include factual narratives and interpretations of
`conduct or views as to the motivation of parties.”). This is an analysis that the jury is “fully capable
`of understanding . . . through the use of its common knowledge and common sense.” In re Apollo
`Grp. Inc. Sec. Litig., 527 F. Supp. 2d 957, 962 (D. Ariz. 2007) (quoting 3 Jack B. Weinstein &
`Margaret A. Berger, Weinstein’s Federal Evidence, ¶ 702.03[2][a], at 702–36). The evidence is for
`the jury to assess,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Rather than using an expert as a one-stop shortcut, as is the case with Dr. Singer’s qualitative
`analysis, Plaintiffs must instead present their version of the facts through percipient witnesses and
`
`
`9 Dr. Singer’s conclusion in favor of Plaintiffs is unsurprising.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`CERTAIN DEFS’ JOINT MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DR. HAL J. SINGER
`Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD; 3:17-md-02801-JD
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 2347 Filed 06/14/19 Page 15 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`almost entirely on
`
`Specifically, Dr. Singer
`
`documentary evidence, and then allow the jury to exercise their proper role as fact-finder.10 Oracle
`Am., Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Enter. Co., No. 16-cv-01393 (JST), 2018 WL 6511146, at *7 (N.D.
`Cal. Dec. 11, 2018) (“An expert witness may not usurp the jury’s role in making fact
`determinations.”).
`B.
`Dr. Singer’s
` Does Not Comport With Any Accepted Scientific
`Methodology, and Undermines His “Qualitative Analysis.”
`
`Dr. Singer’s “qualitative analysis” is further undermined by t
` Dr. Singer’s “qualitative analysis” is based
`
`
`
`
` Dr. Singer
`
`
`concludes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10 This is particularly so with respect to Dr. Singer’s testimony on
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` So too here, Dr. Singer’s testimony should be
`excluded because his testimony is “utterly unhelpful” when it is not grounded in the methodologies
`of economics, and is on a topic which—as explained more fully below—Dr. Singer is not qualified
`to opine.
`9
`CERTAIN DEFS’ JOINT MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DR. HAL J. SINGER
`Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD; 3:17-md-02801-JD
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 2347 Filed 06/14/19 Page 16 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
` Am. Ad Mgmt., Inc. v. GTE Corp., 92 F.3d 781, 785 (9th Cir. 1996) (price fixing
`requires application of a “per se” approach, rather than a “rule of reason” approach); SourceOne
`Dental, Inc. v. Patterson Companies, Inc., 310 F. Supp. 3d 346, 359 (E.D.N.Y. 2018) (“[E]vidence
`of the mere exchange of information by competitors cannot establish a per se conspiracy.”
`(alterations omitted)).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` See Lust ex rel. Lust v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 89 F.3d 594, 597
`(9th Cir. 1996) (finding expert methodology unscientific when not subjected to peer review and
`expert unable to point to objective source demonstrating methods accepted or espoused in field).
`The fact is, Dr. Singer’s “qualitative analysis” is neither reliable nor scientific. As one example, an
`econometric model, such as the one Dr. Singer sets forth in his quantitative analysis, is replicable by
`
`10
`CERTAIN DEFS’ JOINT MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DR. HAL J. SINGER
`Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD; 3:17-md-02801-JD
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 2347 Filed 06/14/19 Page 17 of 23
`
`
`
`the Defendants’ economists, even if it is ultimately flawed and should be excluded. See Section II,
`infra. Dr. Singer’s qualitative analysis, however, is replicable only by Dr. Singer alone.
`
`
` Dr. Singer’s “qualitative analysis” simply has no
`principled basis. It contains no scientific benchmark. It is decidedly unscientific and should be
`excluded from his opinions in this matter. 
`Finally, Dr. Singer has no “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education” with respect
`, and so his testimony on that subject must be excluded.
`to
`Fed. R. Evid. 702. An expert must be qualified to give the specific testimony he is rendering—
`expertise in a related field, even a very closely related field, is not sufficient. See, e.g., Harris v.
`City of Chicago, No. 14-cv-4391, 2017 WL 3193585, at *4 (N.D. Ill. July 27, 2017) (excluding
`testimony of expert witness whose field was “police practices,” not “false confessions”). Dr. Singer
`has no such experience—
`
`
` Singer Dep. Tr. 80:2–22.11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11 To be sure, courts sometimes qualify witnesses with respect to
`
`
`
`
` See, e.g.,
`Kammerer v. Wyeth, No. 8:04-cv-196, 2011 WL 5237757, at *4 (D. Neb. Nov. 1, 2011) (qualifying
`a “medical doctor and former Medical Officer at the Food and Drug Administration (‘FDA’),” and a
`“longtime executive of a pharmaceutical company [with] . . . a Ph.D. in pharmacology and
`toxicology . . . to testify with respect to the regulatory approval process and post-marketing
`surveillance obligations” of the FDA); In re Mirena IUD Prods. Liab. Litig., 169 F. Supp. 3d 396,
`462–63 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (qualifying former FDA employee as regulatory expert).
`11
`CERTAIN DEFS’ JOINT MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DR. HAL J. SINGER
`Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD; 3:17-md-02801-JD
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 2347 Filed 06/14/19 Page 18 of 23
`
`Nor is Dr. Singer’s “qualitative analysis” supported by his economic expertise.
`
`.12
`In sum,
`
`II.
`
`DR. SINGER’S “QUANTITATIVE” ECONOMETRIC ANALYSES SHOULD BE
`EXCLUDED AS UNRELIABLE.
`Dr. Singer’s econometric model is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12 Moreover, these sources are not reliable bases for determining how the
` Newkirk v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 727 F. Supp. 2d 1006, 1016 (E.D. Wash.
`2010), aff’d, 438 F. App’x 607 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that courts can exclude expert opinions if
`an expert “has not cited to reliable sources for his underlying facts or data”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13 Defendants hereby incorporate Defendants’ Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony of
`Dr. James T. McClave, filed concurrently herewith.
`14 For instance,
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`CERTAIN DEFS’ JOINT MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DR. HAL J. SINGER
`Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD; 3:17-md-02801-JD
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 2347 Filed 06/14/19 Page 19 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons stated above, Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant their
`Motion to Exclude Testimony of Dr. Hal J. Singer.
`
`
`
`13
`CERTAIN DEFS’ JOINT MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DR. HAL J. SINGER
`Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD; 3:17-md-02801-JD
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 2347 Filed 06/14/19 Page 20 of 23
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
`GARRISON LLP
`
`/s/ Joseph J. Bial
`By:
`Charles F. Rule (admitted pro hac vice)
`rrule@paulweiss.com
`Joseph J. Bial (admitted pro hac vice)
`jbial@paulweiss.com
`2001 K STREET, NW
`WASHINGTON, DC 20006-1047
`Tel: (202) 223-7300
`Fax: (202) 223-7420
`
`PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
`GARRISON LLP
`
`Johan E. Tatoy (admitted pro hac vice)
`jtatoy@paulweiss.com
`Sara E. Hershman (admitted pro hac vice)
`shershman@paulweiss.com
`1285 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS
`NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10019-6064
`Tel: (212) 373-3830
`Fax: (212) 492-0830
`
`KAUFHOLD GASKIN LLP
`
`Steven Kaufhold (SBN 157195)
`skaufhold@kaufholdgaskin.com
`388 MARKET STREET
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
`Tel: (415) 445-4621
`Fax: (415) 874-1071
`
`Counsel for Defendants
`Nippon Chemi-Con Corporation
`and United Chemi-Con, Inc.
`
`/s/ Bruce D. Sokler
`By:
`Bruce D. Sokler (admitted pro hac vice)
`Robert G. Kidwell (admitted pro hac vice)
`bdsokler@mintz.com
`rgkidwell@mintz.com
`MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY AND
`POPEO P.C.
`
`Dated: June 14, 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
`
`14
`CERTAIN DEFS’ JOINT MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DR. HAL J. SINGER
`Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD; 3:17-md-02801-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 2347 Filed 06/14/19 Page 21 of 23
`
`
`
`701 Pennsylvania