2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1254-3 Filed 03/11/16 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 21576
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM DOC # 1254-3 Filed O3/ll/16 Pg 1 of 8
`Pg ID 21576
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 2
`
`EXHIBIT 2
`
`

`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1254-3 Filed 03/11/16 Pg 2 of 8 Pg ID 21577
`
`Ronnie S. Spiegel
`HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
`1918 EIGHTH AVENUE, SUITE 3300
`SEATTLE, WA 98101
`www.hbsslaw.com
`Direct (206) 268-9343
`ronnie@hbsslaw.com
`
`October 14, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`VIA EMAIL
`
`Colin Kass
`PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
`1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Suite 600 South
`Washington, DC 20004-2533
`
`
`Re:
`
`Dear Colin:
`
`In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation
`(Master Case No. 2:12-md-02311)
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I am writing on behalf of the serving parties (“Parties”)1 to follow up on the issues raised
`
`by certain subpoena recipients that participated in the summit (“Summit Group”) on October 2,
`2015.2 At the summit, the Parties made best efforts to listen to the Summit Group’s concerns
`and to understand the issues the Summit Group raised. As quickly as possible, the Parties have
`worked together to come up with a proposed path forward for each issue, or to give the Summit
`Group our straightforward position, so that we can all move forward toward cooperation or
`toward quick identification of disputes for the Special Master to resolve. Please see our
`proposals and responses below.3
`
`Please note that not all Parties join in all requests discussed below. The Defendants
`specifically object to the production of any documents in response to Request No. 31, as it seeks
`documents that would violate the settlement-communications privilege recognized in Goodyear
`Tire & Rubber Co. v. Chiles Power Supply, Inc., 332 F.3d 976 (6th Cir. 2003) and Allen Cnty. v.
`Reilly Indus., 197 F.R.D. 352, 354 (N.D. Ohio 2000). Plaintiffs disagree with Defendants’
`assertion of privilege based on State v. Little River Band of Ottowa Indians, 2007 WL 851282, at
`*2 (W.D. Mich. 2007), which makes clear that these documents are not privileged.
`
`
`1 The Parties include: End Payor Plaintiffs; Auto Dealer Plaintiffs; Truck and Equipment Dealer Plaintiffs;
`Public Entity Plaintiffs; and, Defendants in all actions.
`2 Please provide the Parties with a complete list of the entities and individuals that participated in the summit or
`that otherwise join in the group.
`3 The Parties tried to address all items as we understood them from the summit, but please let us know if there
`are any we missed, and we will do our best to provide you with a quick response.
`
`SEATTLE BOSTON CHICAGO COLORADO SPRINGS LOS ANGELES NEW YORK PHOENIX SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`
`
`

`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1254-3 Filed 03/11/16 Pg 3 of 8 Pg ID 21578
`
`Parties’ Ltr. to Colin Kass
`October 14, 2015
`Page 2
`
`
`
`PROPOSED SOLUTIONS AND RESPONSES
`
`1.
`
`Proposal regarding entities that have no responsive information
`
`The Summit Group asked the Parties to clarify our position on subpoenas served on
`entities that have no responsive information. As we have been relaying through individual meet
`and confer with subpoena recipients over the past few months, we do not see any reason to
`pursue subpoenas for entities that have no responsive information. We see this category as
`including entities that truly possess no responsive information, such as entities where another
`member of a corporate family has the information we seek, or where none of the requests applies
`to the particular entity served.
`
`For entities that fit this category, the Parties have outlined the following process:
`
`We ask that counsel provide us with a short explanation (one or two short paragraphs) of
`the entity’s function and why it does not have any responsive information. We ask that counsel
`also include a brochure or other summary document regarding the entity, to help us quickly
`confirm whether the entity fits this category. If the Parties agree that the entity has no responsive
`information and fits this category, we ask that counsel submit a short, formal written response.
`The subpoenaed entity would not need to respond or object to any of the subpoena requests, and
`the entity would reserve all objections. The requests would be held in abeyance, with the
`reservation that should any further information on this entity ever come to light or information
`submitted prove untrue, the Parties would have an opportunity to revisit the subpoena.
`2.
`
`Proposal regarding entities that only have a small amount of sales in the
`United States
`
`At this time, no subpoenas will be withdrawn on the basis of volume of sales in the
`United States, provided the subpoena recipient has responsive information. However, the Parties
`are mindful of striking a balance between discovery of highly relevant information and
`minimizing burden for third parties in this process. Accordingly, the Parties have provided a
`narrowed list of requests, to be tailored on an individual basis with each entity that wishes to
`further negotiate based on its small volume of sales. In order to facilitate meaningful
`conversations, the Parties request that those entities that wish to further negotiate based on sales
`volume provide documentation establishing their vehicle sales volume in the United States,
`regardless of place of manufacture or assembly.
`
`For the smaller entities, the Parties agree to the following narrowed list of requests:
`Request Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 12, 13, 14 (in part), 15 (in part), 16 (in part) 21 (in part), 22, 23 (in
`part), 27, 28 (in part), and 33. For automobiles, “smaller” is defined as those entities whose
`United States annual sales volume is less than 10,000 vehicles. For trucks and equipment, the
`Truck and Equipment Dealer Plaintiffs are prepared to discuss appropriate criteria with the truck
`and equipment entities.
`
`
`
`

`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1254-3 Filed 03/11/16 Pg 4 of 8 Pg ID 21579
`
`Parties’ Ltr. to Colin Kass
`October 14, 2015
`Page 3
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Proposal to narrow the time period
`
`The Summit Group expressed concern over the breadth of the time period stated in the
`subpoena. As the Parties explained on the summit call, the subpoena was not meant to impose a
`time period of 1992 to present for each part action. Rather, to accomplish the Court’s order of
`serving one, comprehensive subpoena, we needed to identify a date range inclusive of all actions.
`The Parties have always had every intention of sitting down with subpoena recipients to clarify
`and tailor the time period to each part action.
`
`The Parties can agree to narrow the time period to the conspiracy period alleged in each
`particular action, as well as a “before and after” period in each action. The before period would
`reach back two years prior to the alleged conspiracy period start date in each action. In addition,
`for the before period, the Parties can agree to limit the requests to production of transactional
`data. The after period for requested documents should extend to the date the Parties and Summit
`Group members complete their negotiations on the subpoena. The after period for requested data
`should extend to the date when subpoenaed entities perform their data extraction. Please see
`Attachment A to this letter for case-by-case list of the alleged conspiracy periods.
`4.
`
`Proposal to narrow requests for certain types of entities
`
`From our conversation during the summit, the Parties’ understanding is that for certain
`types of entities, such as the types of entities listed in the chart below, the Summit Group
`believes that its members should not have to respond to the subpoenas, or that subpoenas should
`be withdrawn.
`
`The Parties see these entities in a different category than those entities that truly have no
`responsive information for any request (as discussed in Section 1 of this letter). However, we
`understand that for certain types of entities, a more limited number of requests will apply, and
`the Parties can agree to narrow requests for each type of entity as per the chart below.
`
`In addition, with respect to the categories below, such entities would only need to
`respond to the narrowed list of requests if the information sought cannot be found at any of the
`main entities subpoenaed in the same corporate family (such as the manufacturing, sales, and
`distributor entities). Regarding the finance and credit entities, we can agree to further narrow
`these requests for transactional data to only summary transactional data and, for non-
`transactional data, to summary analyses, reports, and memos, and not focus on individual
`transactional documents.
`
`Type of Entity
`
`Finance and credit
`
`Narrowed List of Requests
`
`Request Nos. 4(a)(3)(e), 4(a)(4), 4(a)(6), 4(b)(2)(d), 4(c),
`4(c)(2)(e), 4(c)(2)(f), 4(d), 4(i), 4(k), 7, 9 (limited to summary
`transactional data or summary documents only), 21, 29, 34, and
`37 (applies only to Honda and Nissan)
`
`
`
`

`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1254-3 Filed 03/11/16 Pg 5 of 8 Pg ID 21580
`
`Parties’ Ltr. to Colin Kass
`October 14, 2015
`Page 4
`
`
`
`Type of Entity
`
`Narrowed List of Requests
`
`Insurance
`
`Design
`
`Request Nos. 4(b)(2)(e), 4(d), 4(k), and 9 (limited to summary
`transactional data or summary documents only)
`
`Request Nos. 1(g)(6)-(8), 1(g)(17), 14(a), 27, 32, 33, 35, and 37
`(applies only to Honda and Nissan)
`
`Research &
`Development
`
`Request Nos. 1(g)(6)-(9), 1(g)(17), 1(k), 1(j), 1(l), 4(h), 5, 8, 12
`13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 23(3)(a), 24, 26, 27, 28, 33, 35, and 36
`
`Banking and Capital
`
`Request Nos. 9 (limited to summary transactional data or
`summary documents only), 10, 11, 13(a-b), 14, 16, 17, 18, 19,
`21, 33, 34, and 37 (applies only to Honda and Nissan)
`
`5.
`
`Proposal for prioritization of requests for main entities
`
`With respect to the main entities that are involved in procurement, manufacturing,
`assembly, sales, marketing, pricing, and distribution, the Parties are willing to prioritize the
`subpoena requests. We ask that the “First Priority Requests” identified below be sequenced for
`initial production. We understand that there may be requests which focus heavily on
`transactional data and, therefore, may be easier to produce than non-transactional data requests.
`Each entity is in the best position to identify which categories may be transactional data or
`otherwise, and we hope to have individual discussions with each entity to better understand any
`burdens on production of non-transactional data. Here is the sequenced list:
`
`Category
`
`First Priority Requests
`
`Second Priority
`Requests
`
`Request Nos.
`
`Request Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23,
`24, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, and 36
`
`Request Nos. 6, 7, 9, 11, 18, 19, 20, 25, 29, 35, and 37
`
`In addition, to the extent it would be less burdensome, the Parties can also agree to
`frontload production for cases that will come up first for class certification briefing, including
`wire harnesses, anti-vibration rubber parts, and bearings, all with class certification briefing dates
`in July and August 2016. The Parties brought this up at the summit and met with resistance to
`this idea by the Summit Group. As the Parties expressed during the summit, to the extent any
`entity keeps data or documents separately by part, and this would lessen the burden of
`responding, the offer still stands.
`
`
`
`

`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1254-3 Filed 03/11/16 Pg 6 of 8 Pg ID 21581
`
`Parties’ Ltr. to Colin Kass
`October 14, 2015
`Page 5
`
`
`
`6.
`
`Response regarding costs
`
`It is our understanding that the Summit Group is requesting that the Parties agree to pay
`all costs (or agree to share a large percentage of the costs) ahead of any conversations with the
`Parties regarding the types of information that any entity may have (or not have), whether that
`information is readily accessible or already gathered, and without any individual discussion of
`what burden any particular entity may face.
`
`As the Parties expressed during the summit, we are not opposed to having a conversation
`with any entity on costs or to discuss where cost-sharing may be appropriate. However, we
`believe the issue of costs is particular to each entity, and can only occur after the Parties have an
`opportunity to understand what each particular entity may or may not have, and any burden it
`alone may face.
`
`We do not believe it is reasonable for any entity to refuse to provide written responses or
`objections or to refuse to engage with us in conversation based on a demand for up-front costs.
`We request that each entity confirm with us the types of information it may already have
`gathered and to what extent, such as productions previously made to the DOJ, or information
`gathered for other purposes, such as settlement negotiations.
`7.
`
`Response regarding whether the Parties are willing to limit the requests
`based on location of manufacture or assembly
`
`Plaintiffs’ allegations center on claims of a worldwide conspiracy, bid rigging, and
`allocation of markets in the various markets for auto parts, that impacted prices paid for those
`parts, and that were passed on to purchasers in the prices that they paid for automobiles and other
`vehicles. Plaintiffs’ claims are not limited to automobiles and vehicles manufactured or
`assembled in the United States. Defendants take an opposite position, and will need to defend
`against those claims. Under the circumstances, the Parties believe the information and
`documents requested are relevant to our claims and anticipated defenses within the meaning of
`Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Parties cannot agree to limit
`discovery sought based on location of manufacture or assembly.
`
`We understand that not every entity will have responsive information to all requests or
`possess data and documents from the foreign entities within their corporate family. In that
`regard, we are willing to discuss tailoring the subpoena with each entity, based on the types of
`information each entity may possess (in line with each particular entity’s position and role in the
`overall corporate structure).
`8.
`
`Status of replacement part claims
`
`We are still trying to confirm the status of whether any party is seeking data and
`documents regarding replacement parts. Certain public entity plaintiffs have asserted
`replacement part claims for wire harness products. We will provide this information as soon as it
`can be confirmed.
`
`
`
`

`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1254-3 Filed 03/11/16 Pg 7 of 8 Pg ID 21582
`
`MOVING FORWARD
`
`Parties’ Ltr. to Colin Kass
`October 14, 2015
`Page 6
`
`
`
`We hope that the each member of the Summit Group will consider the proposals in this
`letter, and that each will cooperate with us in moving forward with a schedule for providing
`written responses and objections, and for meaningful meet and confer. We ask that each entity
`in the Summit Group confirm if it is willing to work with us in this regard. To the extent that
`any entity in the Summit Group will continue to put off written responses and objections and
`does not agree to move forward, we ask that this be confirmed as well.
`
`Please let us know your response as quickly as possible, so that we may know how to
`move forward and/or can set a plan for briefing any disputed issues with the Special Master.
`Please feel free to contact us with any questions or if we can provide any further information.
`
`Very truly yours,
`
`/s/ Ronnie S. Spiegel
`
`Ronnie S. Spiegel
`
`
`
`

`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1254-3 Filed 03/11/16 Pg 8 of 8 Pg ID 21583
`
`
`
`ATTACHMENT A
`
`
`
`Case
`
`Air Conditioning Systems
`Alternators & Starters (both products)
`Anti-Vibration Rubber Parts (AVRP)
`ATF Warmers
`Automotive Hoses
`Bearings
`Brake Hoses
`Constant Velocity Joint Boot
`Electric Power Steering Assemblies (EPSA)
`Fan Motors
`Fuel Injection Systems/Air Flow Meters/Electronic Throttle
`Bodies (all three products)
`Fuel Senders
`HD Ballasts
`Heater Control Panels
`Ignition Coils
`Instrument Panel Clusters
`Inverters
`Lamps
`Motor Generators
`Occupant Safety Systems (OSS)
`Power Window Motors
`Radiators
`Spark Plugs
`Steering Angle Sensors
`Switches
`Valve Timing Control Devices
`Windshield Washers
`Windshield Wipers
`Wire Harnesses
`
`
`Alleged conspiracy period
`
`5/1/1999-until conspiracy ceased
`6/1/2000- until conspiracy ceased
`3/1/1996- until conspiracy ceased
`11/1/2002- until conspiracy ceased
`5/1/2003- until conspiracy ceased
`1/1/2000- until conspiracy ceased
`2/1/2004- until conspiracy ceased
`1/1/2006- until conspiracy ceased
`1/1/2000- until conspiracy ceased
`1/1/2000- until conspiracy ceased
`1/1/2000- until conspiracy ceased
`
`1/1/2001-until conspiracy ceased
`7/1/1998- until conspiracy ceased
`1/1/2000-until conspiracy ceased
`1/1/2000- until conspiracy ceased
`1/1/2001- until conspiracy ceased
`1/1/2000- until conspiracy ceased
`7/1/2002- until conspiracy ceased
`1/1/2000- until conspiracy ceased
`1/1/2003- until conspiracy ceased
`1/1/2000- until conspiracy ceased
`1/1/2000- until conspiracy ceased
`1/1/2000- until conspiracy ceased
`9/1/2000- until conspiracy ceased
`1/1/2000- until conspiracy ceased
`1/1/2000- until conspiracy ceased
`1/1/2000- until conspiracy ceased
`1/1/2000- until conspiracy ceased
`1/1/1999- until conspiracy ceased
`
`1