Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 2640 Filed 03/13/20 Page 1 of 11
`
`Charles F. Rule (admitted pro hac vice)
`Joseph J. Bial (admitted pro hac vice)
`Eric R. Sega (admitted pro hac vice
`PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
`GARRISON LLP
`2001 K Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Telephone: (202) 223-7300
`Facsimile: (202) 223-7420
`rrule@paulweiss.com
`jbial@paulweiss.com
`esega@paulweiss.com
`
`Steven Kaufhold (SBN 157195)
`KAUFHOLD GASKIN LLP
`388 Market Street, Suite 1300
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: (415) 445-4621
`Facsimile: (415) 874-1071
`skaufhold@kaufholdgaskin.com
`
`Roberto Finzi (admitted pro hac vice)
`Farrah R. Berse (admitted pro hac vice)
`Johan E. Tatoy (admitted pro hac vice)
`PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
`GARRISON LLP
`1285 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10019-6064
`Telephone: (212) 373-3830
`Facsimile: (212) 757-3990
`rfinzi@paulweiss.com
`fberse@paulweiss.com
`jtatoy@paulweiss.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants Nippon Chemi-Con
`Corporation and United Chemi-Con, Inc.
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
`IN RE CAPACITORS ANTITRUST
`LITIGATION
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ SUBMISSION IN
`RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S
`REQUEST REGARDING DR. SINGER
`
`Master Docket No.: 3:17-md-2801-JD
`
`Hon. James Donato
`
`Case No.: 3:14-cv-3264-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
`
`DEFENDANTS’ SUB. IN RESP. TO COURT’S REQUEST REGARDING DR. SINGER
`Case Nos. 3:14-CV-3264-JD; 3:17-MD-2801-JD
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`
`
` 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 2640 Filed 03/13/20 Page 2 of 11
`
`On March 12, the Court—referring to Dr. Singer’s demonstrative slide deck—asked Dr.
`
`Singer: “Now, looking at Demonstrative 17, did you base any of those numbers on DOJ or FTC
`
`guidelines.” Ex. F, 1057:15-16. Dr. Singer, after being asked to respond “yes” or “no,” replied
`
`“Yes. In part, yes.” Ex. F, 1057:20-23. Following that discussion, the Court asked the parties to
`
`make submissions addressing three questions. Set out below and in the accompanying
`
`Declaration of Farrah R. Berse are Defendants’ responses to these questions.1
`
`I.
`
`COLLOQUIES BETWEEN THE COURT AND PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL
`ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT DR. SINGER WAS GOING TO RELY ON
`EXCLUDED MATERIALS
`
`Exhibit A to the Declaration of Farrah Berse contains the requested excerpts of colloquies
`
`between the Court and Plaintiffs’ counsel about whether or not Dr. Singer would rely on
`
`excluded materials. Ex. B, 1126:3-6. The following summarizes the relevant exchanges.
`
`On February 21, this Court ruled that Dr. Singer’s “opinions that are based on ‘criteria
`
`recognized by antitrust agencies as indicative of anticompetitive conduct’ are not admissible.”
`
`ECF No. 1153 at 5. Given the Court’s Order, Defendants asked DPPs’ counsel to identify
`
`“which sections of Dr. Singer’s reports they intend to affirmatively offer as opinions at trial.”
`
`Defendants asked again on February 28. DPPs did not do so. Exs. G-I.
`
`On February 29 and March 1, DPPs provided Defendants their opening demonstratives.
`
`Ex. J. Slide 25 was titled “Suspect Communications” “[q]ualitative criteria regarding cartel
`
`investigation recognized by economists.” In court the next day, Defendants raised the issue that
`
`this slide was “a summary of Dr. Singer’s testimony based on the DOJ/FTC joint guidelines on
`
`communications among competitors that Your Honor has excluded.” Ex. A, 125:10–17. DPPs’
`
`counsel responded: “That’s not correct, Your Honor.” Id. 125:18.2
`
`
`1 “Ex. _” refers to the exhibits attached to the accompanying Declaration of Farrah R. Berse,
`dated March 13, 2020.
`2 This slide was used by DPPs in their opening statement in explaining that the jury would hear
`the testimony of Dr. Singer, who is an “expert at how some types of communications are
`DEFENDANTS’ SUB. IN RESP. TO COURT’S REQUEST REGARDING DR. SINGER
`Case Nos. 3:14-CV-3264-JD; 3:17-MD-2801-JD
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`
`
` 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 2640 Filed 03/13/20 Page 3 of 11
`
`The next morning, in anticipation of Dr. Singer’s testimony, the Court and the parties
`
`discussed the scope of Defendants’ cross examination on the issue of Dr. Singer’s reliance on
`
`material the Court had excluded. Defendants’ counsel asked whether, “in light of the exclusion
`
`
`of certain of Dr. Singer’s qualitative reliance on the DOJ and the FTC,” they could ask Dr.
`
`Singer if such materials “formed the primary basis for . . . his opinions on his qualitative
`
`conclusion that there was a price-fixing conspiracy.” Ex. A, Mar. 3 Tr. 306:21-307:11. DPPs’
`
`counsel again informed the Court that Dr. Singer’s testimony included a “section where he refers
`
`to all of these documents, all of this qualitative evidence specifically based on those economic
`
`criteria, not on the DOJ/FTC guidelines.” Id. 307:18-308:10.
`
`After that discussion, DPPs provided Defendants with the first of four versions of Dr.
`
`Singer’s intended trial demonstratives. Slide 33 of the first version was entitled “Antitrust
`
`Guidelines: Suspect Communications.” Ex. L, Slide 33. On March 5, the parties discussed this
`
`slide with the Court. In that colloquy, DPPs’ counsel informed the Court that the reference to the
`
`Antitrust Guidelines was a “typographical error . . . which we will eliminate” and that “[t]he
`
`antitrust guidelines, we, of course, will not refer to that, nor will Dr. Singer testify about that,
`
`because that is, as I understand it, not permitted.” Ex. A, 592:23-593:11.3
`
`
`consistent with competition” and how some are “inconsistent with competition but consistent
`with collusion.” Ex. K, Mar. 3 Tr. 233:24-234:6.
`3 In the last two Singer decks that Plaintiffs provided to Defendants, one on March 6 and another
`on March 8, the slide remained largely unchanged except for the deletion of the words “Antitrust
`Guidelines,” and some differences in the number of “Suspect Communications” attributed to
`certain Defendants. Ex. M, March 6 Dr. Singer Slide 18; Ex. N, March 8 Dr. Singer Slide 17.
`The March 8 version that was ultimately used at trial is substantially similar to the chart
`contained in Dr. Singer’s rebuttal report, which appears to have been prepared prior to the
`Court’s Daubert ruling. Ex. O Singer Rebuttal Rpt. Table A.2.2.
`DEFENDANTS’ SUB. IN RESP. TO COURT’S REQUEST REGARDING DR. SINGER
`Case Nos. 3:14-CV-03264-JD; 3:17-MD-2801-JD
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
` 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 2640 Filed 03/13/20 Page 4 of 11
`
`II. WHETHER A LIMITING INSTRUCTION IS SUFFICIENT
`
`The Court has asked for the parties’ views on whether “a limiting instruction is enough or
`
`whether there are so many tentacles that the whole thing [all of Dr. Singer’s testimony] has to be
`
`
`stricken.” Ex. B, Tr. 1126:10-14. Defendants have reviewed the trial record, and especially Dr.
`
`Singer’s testimony, and given the issue careful consideration. For reasons that follow—and
`
`based in part on Dr. Singer’s own explanations of how his opinions are interdependent—we do
`
`not believe that that the issue can be cured through a limiting instruction, and respectfully request
`
`that Dr. Singer’s testimony be stricken in its entirety.
`
`Dr. Singer’s testimony began on March 11. In discussing his assignments, he testified
`
`that his “first assignment was to study the economic evidence in the case and to make a
`
`determination if that economic evidence was more consistent with a price-fixing conspiracy or
`
`more consistent with the results of competitive interaction among the firms.” Ex. C, Mar. 11
`
`Trial Tr. 863:9-13. He referred to this assignment as largely qualitative. Id. 864:7. Dr. Singer
`
`described his second assignment as reviewing the opinions of the defendants’ experts. His third
`
`assignment was to “assess the scope of the alleged conspiracy,” and he testified that this
`
`assignment was “supplemented with a qualitative analysis as well. Id. at 865:23-25; see also id.
`
`867:24-868:10. Throughout Dr. Singer’s testimony, he explained how his qualitative analysis
`
`informed his opinions. See, e.g., id. at 878:10-21; 882:4-8; 884:5-18; 926:18-927:19; 938:11-16;
`
`966:19-21; 967:14-23.
`
`There is no doubt that Dr. Singer’s analysis of the excluded DOJ/FTC factors was the
`
`basis for most, if not all, of his qualitative analysis. For example, Dr. Singer explained at his
`
`deposition that the “qualitative analysis” at the beginning of his report was “undergirded by the
`
`DEFENDANTS’ SUB. IN RESP. TO COURT’S REQUEST REGARDING DR. SINGER
`Case Nos. 3:14-CV-03264-JD; 3:17-MD-2801-JD
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
` 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 2640 Filed 03/13/20 Page 5 of 11
`
`FTC and DOJ horizontal collaboration guidelines.” Ex. D, Singer Dep. Tr. 75:8-76:12.4 When
`
`asked more specifically how an economist could “carry out [his] qualitative analysis” regarding
`
`linking film to the aluminum and tantalum, Dr. Singer claimed it was based on the four
`
`
`DOJ/FTC factors. Id. 92:13-94:20 (Q. “Could you explain that to me?” A. “I commend you to
`
`read my qualitative assessment section. I can give you it in broad strokes right now if you'd like.
`
`But it is pretty clear how I came to that conclusion based on the qualitative assessment.” Q.
`
`“Right. The three factors that you looked at?” A. “The four-factor test of the DOJ and FTC
`
`guidance, right”).5
`
`Dr. Singer also confirmed that it was the DOJ/FTC factors that were responsible for
`
`determinations regarding the “suspect communications” listed in the disputed chart. He
`
`explained that he was “looking for the four factors that are spelled out in the guidance, and I
`
`wouldn't consider -- if this document makes my list of 211 odd documents that I believe satisfy
`
`those conditions, I wouldn't have made that decision unless I believed that it met all four.”6 Id.
`
`
`4 When asked how he, “as an economist performing the qualitative analysis,” would analyze a
`specific document, Dr. Singer replied that would be “thinking about the four-prong test from the
`DOJ/FTC guidance . . . . That’s what I'm applying when I go to assess record evidence here.”
`Id. 99:10-100:23. Dr. Singer continued that “just for the record to be clear, we look at the FTC
`and DOJ horizontal coordination guidelines informing the [qualitative analysis of record
`evidence that would allow an economist to make an inference of anticompetitive information
`exchange].” Id. 76:25-77:22.
`5 Dr. Singer similarly testified with regard to another document that he was “loathe to say on the
`fly which particular element triggered in my opinion the four necessary criteria spelled out in the
`DOJ/FTC guidance on what constitutes anticompetitive information exchange.” Id. 102:14-
`103:20.
`6 When asked whether the qualitative evidence “is consistent with collusion and inconsistent
`with unilateral conduct based on standard principles of economics,” Dr. Singer explained that “at
`the beginning of my report, I'm going through bilateral and multilateral exchanges, and I'm
`trying to make a determination as to whether this four-part DOJ/FTC test would be triggered.
`And if all four prongs are triggered, I make the conclusion that the document is potentially
`indicative of anticompetitive conduct. It’s potentially anticompetitive.” Id. 196:17–197:22; see
`also Ex. E, Singer Rpt. ¶ 8.
`DEFENDANTS’ SUB. IN RESP. TO COURT’S REQUEST REGARDING DR. SINGER
`Case Nos. 3:14-CV-03264-JD; 3:17-MD-2801-JD
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
` 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 2640 Filed 03/13/20 Page 6 of 11
`
`104:24-105:8.7
`
`Likewise Dr. Singer clearly relied on his qualitative analysis to structure his quantitative
`
`analysis and arrive at his opinions. Indeed, Dr. Singer himself has consistently taken the position
`
`
`that his conclusions were based on an inseparable combination of his qualitative and quantitative
`
`analysis.
`
`In explaining that he relied on the DOJ/FTC guidelines to identify certain
`
`communications as “suspect,” Dr. Singer testified at his deposition that:
`
`And remember, all I’m concluding with the yes here is that the
`conduct was indicative or was potentially anticompetitive. So the
`analysis, as you know, doesn’t end there. It’s the starting point.
`And it eventually gets married up with quantitive [sic] evidence. It
`is the combination of the two that allows me to make the
`conclusion of anticompetitive effects.
`
`Singer Dep. Tr. at 200:23-201:8 (emphasis added). And Dr. Singer’s report itself states that it is
`
`the “[t]he mutually reinforcing qualitative evidence and quantitative analyses is consistent with a
`
`single overarching conspiracy involving both electrolytic and film Capacitors.” Ex. E, Singer
`
`Rpt. ¶ 66; see also, e.g., id. at ¶ 12 (twice noting his qualitative and quantitative analysis was
`
`“mutually reinforcing”), ¶ 18. Similarly, at his deposition, Dr. Singer made clear that his
`
`
`7 Dr. Singer’s deposition also confirms that the DOJ/FTC factors form the basis for his opinions
`regarding anticompetitive conduct. See Ex. D, 114:9-15 (“So if there is information exchange
`among film producers that rises to this standard that's spelled out in the DOJ/FTC guidance, then
`I'm going to make a determination as to whether or not that communication involving film
`capacitors is indicative of anticompetitive conduct.”); 140:9-15 (“As you're aware, when I'm
`looking at a document to see if it meets these four factors of the DOJ/FTC guidelines, if they
`have, then the only conclusion that I make is that they are potentially anticompetitive or that they
`are indicative of anticompetitive conduct.”); 141:19-22 (“Q OK, well, the analyses you did
`perform are based on the four factors in the DOJ guidelines, is that right? A. Correct.”); 272:3-21
`(explaining that in his analysis, the record evidence “trigger these four-part DOJ/FTC criteria for
`anticompetitive information exchange”); id. 321:5-11 (stating that “I do get nervous that we can
`take an agreement that would otherwise be anticompetitive and would trigger this four-prong
`DOJ/FTC test”); id. 352:1-6 (“Remember, I take a bilateral communication and I say, is this
`communication -- does it reflect elements that would set off this four-part DOJ/FTC test, and if
`so, I'm going to categorize it as being potentially anticompetitive.”).
`DEFENDANTS’ SUB. IN RESP. TO COURT’S REQUEST REGARDING DR. SINGER
`Case Nos. 3:14-CV-03264-JD; 3:17-MD-2801-JD
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 2640 Filed 03/13/20 Page 7 of 11
`
`
`
` 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
`
`qualitative and quantitative analyses were intertwined and could not be disentangled. For
`
`example, Dr. Singer testified that his “two [analyses], of course, go hand in hand” because he
`
`relied on his analysis of the status tables to “inform the structure and various tests performed in
`
`
`the econometric analysis as well.” Ex. D, Singer Dep. Tr. 24:15-19. Dr. Singer was “reluctant to
`
`say there is a sharp divide between the qualitative and the quantitative and the evidence that
`
`inform them because they go hand in hand.” Id. 24:20-23. When asked specifically whether he
`
`was “looking to [the antitrust agency factors] when [he] performed his econometric analysis,”
`
`Dr. Singer again confirmed that he had “a hard time putting up a wall between the two because
`
`the – I can’t – I can’t help but be informed in part by what antitrust agencies say about the type
`
`of information exchanges that could engender anticompetitive effects. That is the hypothesis that
`
`my econometric model is testing.” Id. 24:24-25:13.
`
`When Defendants attempted to distinguish between the qualitative and quantitative parts
`
`of his report, Dr. Singer testified: “I know you want to create a barricade between the two parts
`
`of my report. But I come to my conclusion based on the totality of the analysis, and that includes
`
`a qualitative section and a quantitative section and all signs are pointing to a single conspiracy.”
`
`Id. 116:10-117:3.
`
`The foregoing demonstrates that Dr. Singer himself cannot reasonably separate his
`
`qualitative and quantitative assignments. Further, and to the extent that there are areas of Dr.
`
`Singer’s testimony that are conceivably free of the excluded “tentacles” alluded-to by the Court,
`
`we struggle to see how the parties and the Court could craft a meaningful instruction that
`
`appropriately described what is “in” and what is “out.” Under the circumstances we do not see
`
`how that instruction would be crafted in a way to provide the jury the meaningful guidance they
`
`need to distinguish between the Singer evidence that was properly admitted and the evidence that
`
`was excluded and must be stricken. We note in this regard that DPPs would not suffer
`DEFENDANTS’ SUB. IN RESP. TO COURT’S REQUEST REGARDING DR. SINGER
`Case Nos. 3:14-CV-03264-JD; 3:17-MD-2801-JD
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
` 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 2640 Filed 03/13/20 Page 8 of 11
`
`significant unfair prejudice from the exclusion of all of Dr. Singer’s testimony because the
`
`remaining (and appropriate) components of Singer’s testimony will be offered through Dr.
`
`McClave.8
`
`
`
`III. WHETHER DISMISSAL IS APPROPRIATE FOR FAILURE TO ESTABLISH
`ANTITRUST INJURY
`
`We believe that the Court’s ruling will make it very difficult (and perhaps impossible) for
`DPPs to survive a motion for a directed verdict. Nevertheless, and again mindful of Your
`Honor’s request that Defendants not seek to overreach, Defendants respectfully suggest that this
`question be held in abeyance and revisited at the close of the DPPs’ case.
`Courts in this District have recognized the difference between expert opinions on issues
`such as antitrust injury and anticompetitive effects, on the one hand, and expert opinions on
`overcharge and damages on the other. That distinction is relevant here, in that DPPs have
`specifically limited Dr. McClave’s testimony to “an econometric analysis of common impact and
`a calculation of aggregate damages[, and] [i]n contrast” Dr. Singer analyzed “whether the
`conduct of each Defendant was consistent with a horizontal price-fixing conspiracy and
`inconsistent with competition,” and whether the evidence is “consistent with Defendants
`engaging in a single conspiracy.” ECF 810 at 3.
`Both experts have repeatedly reaffirmed those distinctions. Dr. McClave testified at his
`deposition that he did not opine on liability. See Ex. P, McClave Dep. Tr. 171:20 – 172:5; id.
`51:3-14. Dr. Singer testified that he did not opine on damages. See Ex. Q, Singer Dep. Tr.
`15:14-15; 18:2; 19:4-6. Instead, Dr. Singer testified that he was tasked only with “assess[ing]
`anticompetitive effects.” Id. 164:12-25.
`For these reasons, the exclusion of Dr. Singer’s testimony strongly suggests that the
`DPPs will be left only with Dr. McClave’s overcharge and damages presentation, and no
`
`8 If the Court chooses not to strike Dr. Singer’s testimony in its entirety, Defendants believe that,
`at a minimum, the Court should strike all testimony associated with Dr. Singer’s Slides 6, 7, 9-
`24, 26-27, 29, 31-35, 51-57, 59, and instruct the jury to disregard those slides along with all the
`corresponding testimony about whether conduct was “consistent with collusion.”
`DEFENDANTS’ SUB. IN RESP. TO COURT’S REQUEST REGARDING DR. SINGER
`Case Nos. 3:14-CV-03264-JD; 3:17-MD-2801-JD
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 2640 Filed 03/13/20 Page 9 of 11
`
`
`
` 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
`
`testimony (expert or otherwise) on anticompetitive impact to all or nearly all class members.
`This failure of proof of antitrust injury would require dismissal of the case.
`The recently-decided In re Optical Disk Drive Antitrust Litigation is instructive. In that
`
`case, plaintiffs asked Dr. McClave to create a multiple regression overcharge model (based upon
`a single percentage overcharge), and asked another expert to “calculate[] the amount of
`overcharges [] attributable to the conspiracy.” See In re Optical Disk Drive Antitrust Litig., 2017
`WL 6451711, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2017) (“ODD B”). The court granted summary
`judgment for defendants, holding that “Dr. McClave appears to assume that a conspiracy existed,
`and then calculates overcharge on products during the affected period.” Id. Because Dr.
`McClave did not “explain any theory as to how the conspiracy would have affected customers
`other than those specifically targeted, let alone present any evidence that this actually occurred,”
`the Court held that plaintiffs “fail[ed] to proffer any evidence as to causation.” Id.
`The same reasoning applies here. Drs. McClave and Singer explicitly acknowledge the
`limitations of their respective opinions. At his deposition, Dr. McClave confirmed that his
`“opinions are strictly econometric,” and that he did not seek to determine whether the defendants
`were able to carry out the broad-based conspiracy as alleged. Ex. P, McClave Dep. Tr. 171:20-
`22; 29:20–30:6. And Dr. Singer made it clear in his report that his conclusions “demonstrate that
`the Challenged Conduct impacted nearly all Class Members, implicated all Defendants, and
`affected nearly all Capacitor types and sub-types.” Ex. R, Singer Rep. ¶ 12, p. 12. At trial, Dr.
`Singer testified that he was “offering [an] opinion that there was injury. My – my testimony
`concerns anticompetitive effects. The testimony of Dr. McClave speaks to overcharges and
`damages.” Ex. F, Trial Tr. 1083:2-5.
`For all of these reasons, the Defendants believe that DPPs will not be able to prove
`antitrust injury in the absence of Dr. Singer’s excluded testimony. Nevertheless, and in an
`abundance of caution, Defendants request that this ruling be held in abeyance until the close of
`the DPPs’ case.
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ SUB. IN RESP. TO COURT’S REQUEST REGARDING DR. SINGER
`Case Nos. 3:14-CV-03264-JD; 3:17-MD-2801-JD
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 2640 Filed 03/13/20 Page 10 of 11
`
`Dated: March 13, 2020
`
`
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
`GARRISON LLP
`
`
`By: /s/ Joseph J. Bial
`
`PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
`GARRISON LLP
`Charles F. Rule (admitted pro hac vice)
`Joseph J. Bial (admitted pro hac vice)
`Eric R. Sega (admitted pro hac vice)
`2001 K Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Telephone: (202) 223-7300
`Facsimile: (202) 223-7420
`rrule@paulweiss.com
`jbial@paulweiss.com
`esega@paulweiss.com
`
`PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
`GARRISON LLP
`Roberto Finzi (admitted pro hac vice)
`Farrah R. Berse (admitted pro hac vice)
`Johan E. Tatoy (admitted pro hac vice)
`1285 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10019
`Telephone: (212) 373-3000
`Facsimile: (212) 757-3990
`rfinzi@paulweiss.com
`fberse@paulweiss.com
`jtatoy@paulweiss.com
`
`KAUFHOLD GASKIN LLP
`Steven Kaufhold (SBN 157195)
`388 Market Street, Suite 1300
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: (415) 445-4621
`Facsimile: (415) 874-1071
`skaufhold@kaufholdgaskin.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants
`Nippon Chemi-Con, Corp. and
`United Chemi-Con, Inc.
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ SUB. IN RESP. TO COURT’S REQUEST REGARDING DR. SINGER
`Case Nos. 3:14-CV-03264-JD; 3:17-MD-2801-JD
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`
`
` 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 2640 Filed 03/13/20 Page 11 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`
`By: /s/ Bonnie Lau
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Bonnie Lau
`
`Stephen Kam
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`425 Market Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
`Telephone: (415) 268-7000
`Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
`blau@mofo.com
`stephenkam@mofo.com
`
`David Cross
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`2000 Pennsylvania Avenue
`Suite 6000
`Washington, D.C. 20006-1888
`Telephone: (202) 887-1500
`Facsimile: (202) 887-0763
`dcross@mofo.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant Matsuo Electric Co., Ltd.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ SUB. IN RESP. TO COURT’S REQUEST REGARDING DR. SINGER
`Case Nos. 3:14-CV-03264-JD; 3:17-MD-2801-JD
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`
`
`