2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1291 Filed 04/14/16 Pg 1 of 16 Pg ID 23030
`2:12-md—O2311—MOB—MKM DOC # 1291 Filed O4/14/16 Pg 1 Of 16
`Pg ID 23030
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`In Re: AUTOMOTIVE PARTS
`
`12-md-02311
`
`ANTITRUST LITIGATION
`
`Honorable Marianne O. Battani
`
`In Re: WIRE HARNESS CASES
`
`THIS RELATES TO:
`
`All Wire Harness Cases
`
`2: 12-cv—O0100-MOB-MKM
`
`REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF CERTAIN DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
`
`DELPHI CONNECTION SYSTEMS US, INC.’S AND DELPHI_AUTOMOTIVE
`SYSTEMS, LLC’S COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENAS
`
`Oral Argument Requested
`
`

`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1291 Filed 04/14/16 Pg 2 of 16 Pg ID 23031
`2:12-md—O2311—MOB—MKM DOC # 1291 Filed O4/14/16 Pg 2 Of 16
`Pg ID 23031
`
`CONTROLLING OR MOST APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 45
`
`

`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1291 Filed 04/14/16 Pg 3 of 16 Pg ID 23032
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM DOC # 1291 Filed O4/14/16 Pg 3 Of 16
`Pg ID 23032
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`.P_ag9
`
`I.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ....................................................................................... ..1
`
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................. ..2
`
`II.
`
`THE DISCOVERY SOUGHT IN THE SUBPOENAS IS HIGHLY RELEVANT ......... ..2
`
`III.
`
`DELPHI FAILS TO ADDRESS MOST OF THE RULE 26 CONSIDERATIONS ......... ..4
`
`IV.
`
`DELPHI HAS NOT SHOWN THAT COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUBPOENAS
`
`WOULD BE UNDULY BURDENSOME ........................................................................ ..4
`
`V.
`
`DELPHI CONNECTION SYSTEMS US, INC. HAS WAIVED ANY
`OBJECTIONS TO THE SUBPOENA .............................................................................. ..5
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. ..6
`
`

`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1291 Filed 04/14/16 Pg 4 of 16 Pg ID 23033
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM DOC # 1291 Filed O4/14/16 Pg 4 Of 16
`Pg ID 23033
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Page(s)
`
`American Elec. Power C0,, Inc. v. US,
`191 F.R.D. 132 (S.D. Ohio 1999) ............................................................................................ ..5
`
`Concord Boat Corp. v. Brunswick Corp,
`169 F.R.D. 44 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) ............................................................................................... ..5
`
`In re Exxon Valdez,
`
`142 F.R.D. 380 (D.D.C. 1992) ................................................................................................. ..4
`
`Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders,
`432 U.S. 340 (1978) ................................................................................................................. ..3
`
`Szasz v. Dolgencorp, LLC,
`Civ. No. 12-15619, 2013 WL 4776188 (E.D. Mich. Sep. 6, 2013) ......................................... ..3
`
`United States v. Blue Cross Blue Shield ofMichigan,
`No. 10-CV-14155, 2012 WL 4513600 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 1, 2012) ...................................... ..2, 3
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Rule 26 ................................................................................................................................... ..2, 3, 4
`
`

`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1291 Filed 04/14/16 Pg 5 of 16 Pg ID 23034
`2:12-md—O2311—MOB—MKM DOC # 1291 Filed O4/14/16 Pg 5 Of 16
`Pg ID 23034
`
`1.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`Far from demonstrating that the Subpoenas are unreasonable and that no discovery is
`
`warranted, Delphi Automotive Systems, LLC’s and Delphi Connection Systems US,
`
`lnc.’s
`
`(collectively, “Delphi”) response to Certain Defendants’ (“Defendants”)‘ Motion to Compel
`
`focuses instead on ad hominem attacks on the Furukawa Defendants and protestations that
`
`Delphi is a “victim” of the alleged price-fixing conspiracies. But Delphi’s rhetoric is beside the
`
`point—whether the Furukawa Defendants or any other Defendant pled guilty and whether Delphi
`
`was “victimized” by the alleged antitrust conspiracies are utterly irrelevant to any of the
`
`considerations governing whether Delphi should be required to comply with the Subpoenas
`
`served upon it.2
`
`Stripped of its rhetoric, Delphi’s response is remarkably devoid of legitimate, substantive
`
`reasons to deny Defendants the discovery they seek. Although Delphi asserts that Defendants
`
`1 Delphi argues that, because the Furukawa Defendants formally issued the Subpoenas, the other
`moving Defendants lack standing to seek their enforcement.
`(ECF No. 1283, at 2.) First, Delphi
`misses the point—whether they have “standing” or not (and they do), the fact that numerous
`other Defendants joined this Motion to Compel puts the lie to Delphi’s efforts to characterize the
`Furukawa Defendants as outliers in seeking this discovery. Second, the Order Approving First
`Supplemental Discovery Plan, entered by the Court on May 23, 2014 (2:l2—cv-00100-MOB,
`ECF No. 224, at 13-14) provides in Section I.(I.) that “[s]ubject to objections asserted by a
`recipient of a Rule 45 subpoena .
`.
`.
`, any party is entitled to receive the documents or
`information produced by non-parties in response to third-party discovery,” and “to enforce the
`Rule 45 subpoena” in the event that the serving party settles or is dismissed from the litigation.
`Thus, even though a single Defendant may be formally responsible for seeking discovery from a
`particular third party, all Defendants will ultimately benefit from the information obtained. For
`that reason,
`the other Defendants joining this Motion have a strong interest in seeing the
`Subpoenas enforced. Regardless, as issuers of the Subpoenas, the Furukawa Defendants have
`“standing” to seek their enforcement, so Delphi’s argument is ultimately irrelevant——the Court
`must reach the substantive issues raised in Defendants’ Motion to Compel.
`2 Regardless, Delphi does not explain how it was harmed by conduct that allegedly increased the
`RFQ prices of its competitors to its automaker OEM customers that it was presumably trying to
`beat, and a guilty plea in a criminal antitrust proceeding does not strip either the Furukawa
`Defendants or other Defendants of their rights to obtain discovery from a non-party when that
`discovery is essential to their defense of private damage claims in subsequent civil class action
`litigation.
`
`

`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1291 Filed 04/14/16 Pg 6 of 16 Pg ID 23035
`2:12-md—O2311—MOB—MKM DOC # 1291 Filed O4/14/16 Pg 6 Of 16
`Pg ID 23035
`
`“ha[ve] not sufficiently identified why [they] need[] Delphi’s documents” (ECF No. 1283, at l),
`
`Delphi does not credibly dispute that the information sought in the Subpoenas is likely relevant
`
`to a “yardstick” or “benchmark” damages analysis in this litigation. Delphi offers no further
`
`support for its arguments that compliance with the Subpoenas would be unduly burdensome, and
`
`it does not address the other pertinent Rule 26 factors the Court must consider. Finally, Delphi
`
`does nothing to establish that “unusual circumstances” excuse Delphi Connection Systems US,
`
`Inc.’s failure to timely object to or move against the Subpoena issued to it. Simply put, Delphi
`
`has not met its “particularly heavy burden” to show why it should not be required to comply with
`
`the Subpoenas. See United States v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, No. 10-CV-14155,
`
`2012 WL 4513600, at *5 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 1, 20l2).3
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`II.
`
`THE DISCOVERY SOUGHT IN THE SUBPOENAS IS HIGHLY RELEVANT.
`
`Delphi argues that, because Defendants do not know to a certainty that Delphi’s
`
`information will ultimately prove to be useful in a “benchmark” or “yardstick” damages analysis,
`
`the Subpoenas amount to nothing more than a “fishing expedition.” (ECF No. 1283, at 4-5.) But
`
`Delphi’s demand that Defendants determine before ever seeing the information that it
`
`is an
`
`appropriate “benchmark” or “yardstick” for such an analysis essentially puts Defendants in a
`
`to strike Defendants’ Motion to Compel Delphi’s
`In a footnote, Delphi asks the court
`3
`compliance with the Subpoenas, claiming that it violates a local rule because it was included in a
`response to Delphi’s Motion for Protective Order rather than filed as a separate motion.
`(ECF
`No. 1283, at 2, n. 2.) Delphi’s argument is wrong. First, Defendants filed and docketed the
`Motion both as a response to Delphi’s Motion and separately as a Motion.
`(2:12-cv—00lO0—
`MOB, ECF No. 346 (opposition to Delphi’s Motion); ECF No. 348 (Motion to Compel).)
`Further, although Delphi cites “Local Rule 5(e),” that is not a local rule at all.
`It is R5(e) of the
`Court’s Electronic Filing Policies and Procedures.
`Those policies address procedural, not
`substantive, matters. They provide for the clerk to control docketing of filings, but are not a
`basis for a party (or non—party like Delphi) to seek to strike a filing, particularly on a technicality
`where the party (or non—party) obviously is not prejudiced, as is the case here.
`In any event, as
`noted, Defendants complied with the Court’s procedure by filing their brief separately as a
`Motion as well as a response to Delphi’s Motion.
`
`

`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1291 Filed 04/14/16 Pg 7 of 16 Pg ID 23036
`2:12-md—O2311—MOB—MKM DOC # 1291 Filed O4/14/16 Pg 7 Of 16
`Pg ID 23036
`
`Catch-22:
`
`they need Delphi’s information to determine whether it will be ultimately found to be
`
`relevant to a “benchmark” or “yardstick” analysis, but Delphi contends they are not entitled to
`
`obtain the information unless and until they show conclusively that it will ultimately be found to
`
`be relevant at class certification or at trial.
`
`(See id. at 4) (Defendants “ha[ve] made no showing
`
`that [their] operation[s] and Delphi’s operation are identical”)
`
`Delphi’s impossible standard is not how relevance is evaluated for purposes of discovery.
`
`“Discovery requests may be deemed relevant if there is any possibility that the information may
`
`be relevant to the general subject matter of the action.” Szasz v. Dolgencorp, LLC, Civ. No. 12-
`
`15619, 2013 WL 4776188, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Sep. 6, 2013) (emphasis added); see also
`
`Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 432 U.S. 340, 351 (1978) (relevance for Rule 26 purposes
`
`“has been construed broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead
`
`to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case”). Defendants have
`
`shown there is a “possibility,” if not a likelihood, that the information sought in the Subpoenas
`
`will be relevant to a “benchmark” or “yardstick” damages analysis.“ And even if, upon review,
`
`Delphi’s information ultimately shows that it is not an appropriate “benchmark” or “yardstick,”
`
`that fact itself may be relevant to show the absence of a common method for proving impact at
`
`class certification or plaintiffs’ alleged damages at trial.
`
`4 Delphi’s out-of—context citation (ECF No. 1283, at 1, n. 1) to the Master’s order in the Truck &
`Equipment Dealer case is apropos of nothing.
`In his ruling, the Master noted that Plaintiffs there
`had agreed to produce substantial documents in addition to their transactional data, including
`“samples of deal files” and “all relevant and non-burdensome documents that can be produced
`by” the close of document discovery (2:14-cv-00700-MOB, ECF No. 4, at 3). Thus, not only
`had those Plaintiffs agreed to a substantial document production, but Defendants’ need for
`information beyond Delphi’s transactional data here—namely, to determine whether Delphi is an
`appropriate third-party “benchmark” or “yardstick” for comparison to defendants—would, of
`course, not exist with respect to Plaintiffs’ data.
`
`

`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1291 Filed 04/14/16 Pg 8 of 16 Pg ID 23037
`2:12-md—O2311—MOB—MKM DOC # 1291 Filed O4/14/16 Pg 8 Of 16
`Pg ID 23037
`
`Both Plaintiffs and Defendants requested the discovery sought in the Subpoenas, and
`
`Delphi never questioned its relevance during the many months the parties negotiated with Delphi
`
`to produce it.
`
`Indeed, until recently Delphi had offered to produce most of it.
`
`(See Gangnes
`
`Dec. 111] 5-23 & Exs. C, E, F, I-L, N, O.) In the face of this history, Delphi cannot legitimately or
`
`credibly dispute the relevance of the discovery Defendants are seeking.
`
`III.
`
`DELPHI FAILS TO ADDRESS MOST OF THE RULE 26 CONSIDERATIONS.
`
`Delphi does not address the first four proportionality factors of the new Rule 26 at all,
`
`implicitly conceding that the issues at stake in this action are highly important; that the amount in
`
`controversy is substantial
`
`(indeed,
`
`it
`
`is staggering);
`
`that only Delphi has access to the
`
`information sought; and that Delphi has substantial resources that would enable it to comply with
`
`the Subpoenas.
`
`IV.
`
`DELPHI HAS NOT SHOWN THAT COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUBPOENAS
`
`WOULD BE UNDULY BURDENSOME.
`
`Delphi offers no further support in its response for its contention that compliance with the
`
`Subpoenas would be burdensome.
`
`Its only argument seems to be that the Furukawa Defendants
`
`never offered Delphi a blank check to cover the costs of its production, and that it does not wish
`
`to engage in any cost-sharing.
`
`(ECF No. 1283, at 3.) But Delphi
`
`ignores the substantial
`
`authority stating that it is appropriate for a subpoenaed third party to bear at least a reasonable
`
`portion of the production costs. See, e.g., In re Exxon Valdez, 142 F.R.D. 380, 382-84 (D.D.C.
`
`1992). And Defendants remain willing to discuss reasonable ways to share or otherwise limit the
`
`costs of compliance with the Subpoenas,
`
`if only Delphi would engage in a meaningful
`
`meet/confer process about (i) the burdens, if any, in searching for and producing the documents
`
`and data requested in the Subpoenas; (ii) a valid estimate of its costs to comply, and (iii) ways to
`
`

`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1291 Filed 04/14/16 Pg 9 of 16 Pg ID 23038
`2:12-md—O2311—MOB—MKM DOC # 1291 Filed O4/14/16 Pg 9 Of 16
`Pg ID 23038
`
`minimize and equitably share any such burdens and costs, by limiting the scope of the Requests
`
`in the Subpoena, the scope of Delphi’s search, or otherwise.
`
`Similarly, Delphi again complains about production of its confidential information (ECF
`
`No. 1283, at 3), but it offers no compelling argument that an “attorneys’ eyes only” designation
`
`under the existing Protective Order would be insufficient to protect its proprietary interests.5
`
`V.
`
`DELPHI CONNECTION SYSTEMS US, INC. HAS WAIVED ANY OBJECTIONS
`TO THE SUBPOENA.
`
`Finally, Delphi Connection Systems US, Inc. argues that its failure to timely object to or
`
`move against the Subpoena issued to it should be excused.
`
`(ECF No. 1283, at 5-7.) But the
`
`cases upon which Delphi relies acknowledge that “[t]he failure to serve written objections to a
`
`subpoena within the time specified by Rule 45 typically constitutes a waiver of those
`
`objections[,]” barring “unusual circumstances[.]” American Elec. Power Co., Inc. v. U.S., 191
`
`F.R.D. 132, 136 (S.D. Ohio 1999); Concord Boat Corp. v. Brunswick Corp., 169 F.R.D. 44, 48
`
`(S.D.N.Y. 1996). To establish “unusual circumstances,” a subpoenaed party must show that
`
`(1) the subpoena is overbroad and unfair on its face; (2) the subpoenaed person is a non-party
`
`acting in good faith; and (3) counsel for the subpoenaing and subpoenaed parties were in contact
`
`concerning compliance prior to the time the witness challenged the subpoena. Concord Boat,
`
`169 F.R.D. at 48. Delphi Connection Systems US, Inc. cannot satisfy any of those elements. As
`
`shown, the Subpoena is not overbroad; it seeks information that is potentially highly relevant to
`
`5 At the March 24, 2016 hearing on the parties’ Motion to Compel the automaker OEMs to
`comply with the parties’ Subpoenas,
`the Master rejected the same argument as Delphi’s
`advanced by the OEMs—that the “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” provisions in the Protective Order here
`were insufficient to protect the OEMS’ proprietary interests. The Master noted (tr. at 14): “They
`-- every day in this country major cases are litigated in which highly-confidential competitive
`information is exchanged under protective orders, and I understand the significance of this but
`protective orders are designed exactly to prevent leaking of that information, so I don't accept
`that as [an] argument for not producing the information.”
`
`

`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1291 Filed 04/14/16 Pg 10 of 16 Pg ID 23039
`2:12-md—O2311—MOB—MKM DOC # 1291 Filed O4/14/16 Pg 10 Of 16
`Pg ID 23039
`
`this litigation. Rather than acting in good faith, Delphi led the parties on for two years before
`
`abruptly refusing to provide anything more than limited transactional data.
`
`(See Gangnes Dec.
`
`M 5-26.) And Delphi refused to engage in substantive discussions about compliance with the
`
`Subpoenas after they were issued.
`
`(See Gangnes Dec. W 27-29, Exs. T-U). Delphi has not
`
`shown any “unusual circumstances” to excuse its failure to object to or move against the
`
`Subpoena issued to Delphi Connection Systems US, Inc.
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court enter an Order
`
`requiring Delphi Automotive Systems, LLC and Delphi Connection Systems US, Inc. to comply
`
`with the Subpoenas.
`
`

`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1291 Filed 04/14/16 Pg 11 of 16 Pg ID 23040
`2:12-md—O2311—MOB—MKM DOC # 1291 Filed O4/14/16 Pg 11 Of 16
`Pg ID 23040
`
`April 14, 2016
`
`By:
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`LANE POWELL PC
`
`/s/Larry S. Gangnes
`Larry S. Gangnes
`Heidi B. Bradley
`LANE POWELL PC
`U.S. Bank Centre
`
`1420 Fifth AVe., Suite 4200
`P.O. Box 91302
`
`Seattle, WA 98111-9402
`Telephone: (206) 223-7000
`Facsimile: (206) 223-7107
`gangnesl@lanepowel1.com
`bradleyh@lanepowell.com
`
`Craig D. Bachman
`Kenneth R. Davis 11
`Darin M. Sands
`
`Masayuki Yamaguchi
`Peter D. Hawkes
`LANE POWELL PC
`MODA Tower
`
`601 SW Second AVe., Suite 2100
`Portland, OR 97204-3158
`Telephone: (503) 778-2100
`Facsimile: (503) 778-2200
`bachmanc@lanepowell.com
`davisk@lanepowell.com
`sandsd@lanepowell.com
`yamaguchim@lanepowell.com
`hawkesp@lanepowell.com
`
`Richard D. Bisio (P30246)
`Ronald S. Nixon (P57117)
`KEMP KLEIN LAW FIRM
`
`201 W. Big Beaver, Suite 600
`Troy, MI 48084
`Telephone: (248) 528-1111
`Facsimile: (248) 528-5129
`richard.bisio@kkue.com
`ron.nixon@kkue.corn
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Furukawa Electric
`Co., Ltd. and American Furukawa, Inc.
`
`

`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1291 Filed 04/14/16 Pg 12 of 16 Pg ID 23041
`2:12-md—O2311—MOB—MKM DOC # 1291 Filed O4/14/16 Pg 12 Of 16
`Pg ID 23041
`
`April 14, 2016
`
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND
`DORR LLP
`
`By:
`
`/s/Steven F. Cherry gw/consent}
`Steven F. Cherry
`David P. Donovan
`Brian C. Smith
`Kurt G. Kastorf
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND
`DORR LLP
`
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20006
`Telephone: (202) 663-6000
`Fax: (202) 663-6363
`steven.cherry@wilmerhale.com
`david.donovan@wilmerhale.com
`brian.smith@wilmerhale.com
`kurt.kastorf@wilrnerhale.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants DENSO International
`America, Inc. and DENSO Corporation
`
`Steven M. Zarowny (P33362)
`General Counsel
`
`DENSO International America, Inc.
`24777 Denso Drive
`
`Southfield, MI 48033
`Telephone: (248) 372-8252
`Fax: (248)213-2551
`steve_zaroWny@denso-diam.com
`
`Attorneyfor Defendant DENSO International
`America, Inc.
`
`

`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1291 Filed 04/14/16 Pg 13 of 16 Pg ID 23042
`2:12-md—O2311—MOB—MKM DOC # 1291 Filed O4/14/16 Pg 13 Of 16
`Pg ID 23042
`
`April 14’ 2016
`
`By:
`
`ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
`
`/s/James L. C00 er w/consent
`James L. Cooper
`Michael A. Rubin
`Katherine Clemons
`
`Stephanie L. Fine
`ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
`601 Massachusetts Avenue NW
`
`Washington, DC 20001
`(202) 942-5000
`(202) 942-5999 (facsimile)
`james.cooper@aporter.com
`michael.rubin@aporter.com
`katherine.clemons
`a orter.com
`
`stephanie.fine@aporter.com
`
`Joanne Geha Swanson (P33594)
`Fred Herrmann (P49519)
`Matthew L. Powell (P69186)
`KERR, RUSSELL AND WEBER, PLC
`500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 2500
`Detroit, MI 48226
`(313) 961-0200
`(313) 961-0388 (facsimile)
`jswanson@kerr-russell.com
`fherrmann@kerr-russell.com
`mpowe11@kerr—russell.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Fujikura Ltd. and
`Fujikura Automotive America LLC
`
`

`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1291 Filed 04/14/16 Pg 14 of 16 Pg ID 23043
`2:12-md—O2311—MOB—MKM DOC # 1291 Filed O4/14/16 Pg 14 Of 16
`Pg ID 23043
`
`April 14, 2016
`
`April 14,2016
`
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`
`/s/Michael F. Tubach w/consent
`Michael F. Tubach
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`
`Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: (415) 984-8700
`Fax: (415) 984-8701
`Mtubach@omm.com
`
`Michael R. Turco (P48705)
`BROOKS WILKINS SHARKEY & TURCO
`PLLC
`
`401 South Old Woodward, Suite 400
`Birmingham, MI 48009
`Telephone: (248) 971-1713
`Fax: (248) 971-1801
`turco@bwst-law.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Leoni Wiring Systems,
`Inc. and Leonische Holding, Inc.
`
`PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR
`LLP
`
`/s/ Donald M Barnes (W/consent)
`Donald M. Barnes
`
`Jay L. Levine
`John C. Monica
`
`Molly S. Crabtree
`Karri N. Allen
`PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR
`LLP
`
`1919 Pennsylvania AVe., NW, Ste 500
`Washington, DC 20006
`Telephone: (202) 778-3054
`Facsimile: (202) 778-3063
`dbarnes@porterwright.com
`jleVine@porterwright.com
`jmonica@porterwright.com
`mcrabtree@porterwright.corn
`kallen@porterwright.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants G. S. Electech, Inc.,
`G.S. W. Manufacturing, Inc., and GS. Wiring
`Systems, Inc.
`
`10
`
`

`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1291 Filed 04/14/16 Pg 15 of 16 Pg ID 23044
`2:12-md—O2311—MOB—MKM DOC # 1291 Filed O4/14/16 Pg 15 Of 16
`Pg ID 23044
`
`April 14, 2016
`
`TORYS LLP
`
`April 14, 2016
`
`/s/ David Wawro gw/consent)
`David Wawro
`
`TORYS LLP
`
`1114 Avenue of the Americas, 23rd Floor
`
`New York, New York 10036
`
`Phone: (212)880-6288
`Fax: (212) 682-0200
`dwawro@torys.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Mitsubishi Electric
`Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric US Holdings,
`Inc., and Mitsubishi Electric Automotive
`
`America, Inc.
`
`WARNER NORCROSS & JUDD LLP
`
`/s/ William R. Jansen (w/consent)
`William R. Jansen (P36688)
`Michael G. Brady (P57331)
`Amanda M. Fielder (P70180)
`WARNER NORCROSS & JUDD LLP
`
`2000 Town Center, Suite 2700
`
`Southfield, MI 48075-1318
`Phone: 248-784-5000
`
`wjansen@wnj.com
`mbrady@wnj .com
`afielder@wnj.com
`
`Michael Martinez
`
`Steven Kowal
`
`Lauren Norris
`
`Lauren Salins
`
`K&L GATES LLP
`
`70 W. Madison St., Suite 3100
`Chicago, IL 60602
`Phone: 312-807-4404
`
`Fax: 312-827-8116
`
`michael.martinez@klgates.com
`steven.kowal@klgates.com
`lauren.norris@klgates.com
`lauren.salins@klgates.com
`
`Attorneys for Chiyoda Manufacturing
`Corporation and Chiyoda USA Corporation
`
`11
`
`

`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1291 Filed 04/14/16 Pg 16 of 16 Pg ID 23045
`2:12-md—O2311—MOB—MKM DOC # 1291 Filed O4/14/16 Pg 16 Of 16
`Pg ID 23045
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on April 14, 2016, I caused the foregoing REPLY BRIEF IN
`
`SUPPORT OF CERTAIN DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DELPHI
`
`CONNECTION SYSTEMS US, INC.’S AND DELPHI_AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS, LLC’S
`
`COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENAS to be electronically filed with the Clerk of the Couit
`
`using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of record.
`
`/s/Larry S. Gangnes
`Larry S. Gangnes