2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1332 Filed 05/05/16 Pg 1 of 28 Pg ID 23593
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Master File No. 12-md-02311
`Honorable Marianne O. Battani
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In Re: AUTOMOTIVE PARTS
`ANTITRUST LITIGATION
`
`
`
`
`In Re: ALL CASES
`
`
`THIS RELATES TO:
`
`All Dealership Actions
`All End Payor Actions
`
`
`
`
` REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’
` MOTION TO LIFT THE PROVISIONAL SEALING OF A
`PORTION OF THE RULE 30(b)(1) DEPOSITION OF GEORGE R. NISBET,
`THE CO-OWNER OF AUTO DEALER PLAINTIFF THORNHILL SUPERSTORE
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1332 Filed 05/05/16 Pg 2 of 28 Pg ID 23594
`
`CONTROLLING OR MOST APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 30
`
`Conti v. Am. Axle & Mfg., Inc., 326 F. App’x 900 (6th Cir. 2009)
`
`Resolution Trust Corp. v. Dabney, 73 F.3d 262 (10th Cir. 1995)
`
`
`
`
`
` i
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1332 Filed 05/05/16 Pg 3 of 28 Pg ID 23595
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1332 Filed O5/O5/16 Pg 3 of 28
`Pg ID 23595
`REDACTED
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`CONTROLLING OR MOST APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES ................................................... i
`CONTROLLING OR MOST APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES ................................................. .. i
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iii
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................................................................................... .. iii
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................1
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................. ..1
`I.
`AUTO DEALERS’ ARGUMENT ABOUT THE SPECIAL MASTER’S
`I.
`AUTO DEALERS’ ARGUMENT ABOUT THE SPECIAL MASTER’ S
`PRIOR ORDER IS WRONG...............................................................................................1
`PRIOR ORDER IS WRONG............................................................................................. ..1
`AUTO DEALERS’ COUNSEL’S INSTRUCTIONS NOT TO ANSWER
`AUTO DEALERS’ COUNSEL’S INSTRUCTIONS NOT TO ANSWER
`DEPOSITION QUESTIONS WERE ENTIRELY IMPROPER .........................................3
`DEPOSITION QUESTIONS WERE ENTIRELY IIVIPROPER ....................................... ..3
`THE PROVISIONALLY SEALED TESTIMONY IS HIGHLY RELEVANT .................5
`III.
`THE PROVISIONALLY SEALED TESTIMONY IS HIGHLY RELEVANT ............... ..5
`III.
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................7
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. ..7
`
`II.
`II.
`
`
`
` ii
`
`
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1332 Filed 05/05/16 Pg 4 of 28 Pg ID 23596
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Conti v. Am. Axle & Mfg., Inc., 326 F. App’x 900 (6th Cir. 2009) .................................................5
`
`In re Am. Med. Sys., Inc., 75 F.3d 1069 (6th Cir. 1996) ..................................................................7
`
`In re Class 8 Transmission Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litig., Civ. No.
`11-00009-SLR, 2015 WL 6181748 (D. Del. Oct. 21, 2015) ...............................................6
`
`Mellon v. Cooper-Jarrett, Inc., 424 F.2d 499 (6th Cir. 1970) .........................................................4
`
`Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (1978) ..............................................................5
`
`Resolution Trust Corp. v. Dabney, 73 F.3d 262 (10th Cir. 1995) ...............................................3, 4
`
`Serrano v. Cintas Corp., 699 F.3d 884 (6th Cir. 2012) ...................................................................4
`
`STATUTES, RULES, AND REGULATIONS
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)....................................................................................................................4
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) ................................................................................................................3, 4, 5
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(1)................................................................................................................1, 2
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6)................................................................................................................1, 2
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2) ....................................................................................................................3
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(3)............................................................................................................3, 4, 5
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 401 .............................................................................................................................4
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 403 .............................................................................................................................4
`
` iii
`
`
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1332 Filed 05/05/16 Pg 5 of 28 Pg ID 23597
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`The provisional seal on a portion of the testimony of Mr. Nisbet, co-owner of Auto Dealer
`
`Plaintiff Thornhill Superstore, Inc. should be lifted. The Court cannot allow Auto Dealers to block
`
`Defendants from discovering facts that are relevant to whether Thornhill was injured, the measure
`
`of Thornhill’s damages, whether Thornhill is a typical and adequate class representative, and
`
`whether the putative class Thornhill seeks to represent can prove liability using common evidence
`
`by instructing a witness not to answer questions on the basis of “relevance” during a deposition.
`
`Auto Dealers’ Opposition fails to set forth any sound basis to prevent Defendants from
`
`discovering this relevant testimony under the broad standards for discovery in the Federal Rules.
`
`Auto Dealers argue that the Special Master’s December 29, 2015 Order prohibits any questions
`
`based on a witness’s prior testimony, if that testimony was taken in a class action. But the
`
`December 29 Order on Defendants’ Rule 30(b)(6) notice does not set the scope for Rule 30(b)(1)
`
`depositions and, in any event, that order expressly recognized the relevance of questions
`
`concerning Auto Dealers’ pricing, sales, and recordkeeping practices. Further, it was improper for
`
`Auto Dealers’ counsel to instruct Mr. Nisbet not to answer questions based on “relevance,”
`
`especially where the testimony elicited is directly relevant to the issues in this MDL.
`
`I.
`
`AUTO DEALERS’ ARGUMENT ABOUT THE SPECIAL MASTER’S PRIOR
`ORDER IS WRONG
`
`The Special Master’s December 29 Order does not (and was not intended to) block inquiry
`
`on relevant topics in a Rule 30(b)(1) deposition, including on topics that he specifically approved
`
`for Rule 30(b)(6) depositions, simply because the questions pertain to the witness’s prior
`
`testimony in a class action. See Opp. at 1–5. The December 29 Order established only that Auto
`
`Dealers did not have to designate and prepare witnesses to testify about certain specific matters
`
`under Rule 30(b)(6). That ruling did not become the “law of the case” to preclude questions in a
`
`
`
` 1
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1332 Filed 05/05/16 Pg 6 of 28 Pg ID 23598
`
`Rule 30(b)(1) deposition. But even if the December 29 Order had any relevance here, the subjects
`
`about which Mr. Nisbet was examined were clearly within the scope of other topics in the Rule
`
`30(b)(6) notice that the Special Master approved.
`
`The Special Master explicitly affirmed in his December 29 Order that Auto Dealers were
`
`required to designate witnesses to testify about sales, pricing, and recordkeeping practices.
`
`Although Auto Dealers clearly do not like Mr. Nisbet’s testimony on those subjects (especially
`
`after he was confronted with the testimony he gave in prior proceedings), they do not argue that the
`
`testimony in the sealed portion of the deposition transcript did not deal with Thornhill’s sales,
`
`pricing, and recordkeeping practice during the alleged class period. The mere fact that the prior
`
`testimony with which he was confronted was taken in a class action does not render it inadmissible
`
`(which is not, as discussed below, the standard for deposition discovery in any event) or improper.
`
`The December 29 Order cannot reasonably be read to allow examination about sales, pricing, and
`
`recordkeeping practices unless it involved statements made in the record of a prior lawsuit. Auto
`
`Dealers fail to respond to this argument at all, likely because they have nothing to say.
`
`Auto Dealers instead argue that Defendants asked these questions for some improper
`
`motive. If, they argue, Defendants really were interested in Thornhill’s pricing practices,
`
`Defendants “
`
`Opp. at 11. But Defendants did not call the Special Master to
`
`
`
` to do
`
`anything. Rather, they called the Special Master to ask that Auto Dealer counsel be directed to
`
`
`
`
`
`discontinue his improper obstruction of the deposition. Auto Dealers’ counsel
`
` Defs. Mot., Ex. 1, Unsealed Tr. at 241.
`
`
`
` 2
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1332 Filed 05/05/16 Pg 7 of 28 Pg ID 23599
`
`Likewise, Auto Dealers’ claim that Defendants made
`
`
`
` Opp. at 13–14, is belied by the transcript itself, which shows that the
`
`reference to Thornhill’s recordkeeping practices as a
`
` Defs. Mot., Ex. 3, Sealed Tr. at 65:11–68:6.
`
`
`
`
`
` Id. at 68:25–70:4. The examination, in
`
`fact, proceeded amicably after the Special Master directed that it continue under seal, with few
`
`objections thereafter.
`
`Defendants’ investigation of Thornhill’s claims revealed that the dealership engaged in
`
`extensive litigation for nearly half of the alleged class period. Defendants went to the Circuit
`
`Court of Kanawha County, pulled the docket, discovered that Mr. Nisbet made statements in a
`
`sworn affidavit and in a deposition that undermine Thornhill’s claims in this MDL, and confronted
`
`him with these past statements during his deposition. That is neither a “fishing expedition” nor
`
`“muck-raking.” See Opp. at 4, 14. Failing to ask appropriate questions about known prior
`
`testimony concerning key issues might well be malpractice. Certainly, it is not precluded by the
`
`December 29 Order.
`
`II.
`
`AUTO DEALERS’ COUNSEL’S INSTRUCTIONS NOT TO ANSWER
`DEPOSITION QUESTIONS WERE ENTIRELY IMPROPER
`
`Counsel’s instruction to Mr. Nisbet not to answer questions based upon “relevance” was
`
`inappropriate and there is no legal basis to bar use of Mr. Nisbet’s testimony. Depositions are
`
`viewed as such a crucial discovery tool that the Federal Rules provide that testimony should be
`
`taken subject to any objection, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2), absent a showing that the testimony so
`
`“unreasonably annoys, embarrasses, or oppresses” that a protective order should issue under Rule
`
`26(c) or 30(d)(3). Instructing a deponent not to answer a question on relevance grounds is
`
`commonly viewed as sanctionable, see, e.g., Resolution Trust Corp. v. Dabney, 73 F.3d 262, 266
`
`
`
` 3
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1332 Filed 05/05/16 Pg 8 of 28 Pg ID 23600
`
`(10th Cir. 1995), and barring deposition testimony on the basis of “relevance” alone may be
`
`reversible error, see, e.g., Serrano v. Cintas Corp., 699 F.3d 884, 901–02 (6th Cir. 2012).
`
`In order to bar Defendants from discovering information in a deposition—as Auto Dealers
`
`seek to do here by requesting that this deposition testimony remain sealed—Auto Dealers would
`
`have to show that the questions about Mr. Nisbet’s prior testimony and a court’s order concerning
`
`Thornhill’s pricing, sales and recordkeeping practices so “unreasonably annoys, embarrasses, or
`
`oppresses” Mr. Nisbet that a protective order should issue under Rule 26(c) or 30(d)(3). Auto
`
`Dealers have failed to offer any such grounds to limit this testimony from Mr. Nisbet and fail even
`
`to mention the relevant Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that govern discovery.1
`
`Instead, Auto Dealers devote much of their brief to arguing the entirely irrelevant question
`
`of whether Mr. Nisbet’s deposition testimony would be admissible at trial under the Federal Rules
`
`of Evidence. Opp. at 1, 12–15. Putting aside that this testimony will be both relevant and
`
`admissible at any trial, Fed. R. Evid. 401 and 403 have nothing to do with the scope of what
`
`Defendants can discover through depositions, including whether they can examine a witness about
`
`his own prior testimony and a court order in prior litigation in which he was involved.2 As Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 26(b)(1) itself plainly states, “[i]nformation within this scope of discovery need not be
`
`admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” See also Mellon v. Cooper-Jarrett, Inc., 424 F.2d 499,
`
`500-01 (6th Cir. 1970) (“The scope of examination permitted under Rule 26(b) is broader than that
`
`permitted at trial.”) Relevance for purposes of discovery “must be construed broadly to
`
`
`1 Auto Dealers’ “waiver” argument concerning questions asked about the Barker litigation, Opp.
`at 15–16, is frivolous. Auto Dealers bear the burden of demonstrating why these questions should
`be prohibited.
`2 Nor does the Special Master’s authority extend to issues of admissibility under the Federal Rules
`of Evidence. See Order Appointing a Master (2:12-cv-02311, ECF No. 792) (granting Special
`Master authority to resolve “discovery disputes . . . guided by the Federal Rules of Civil
`Procedure”).
`
`
`
` 4
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1332 Filed 05/05/16 Pg 9 of 28 Pg ID 23601
`
`encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matters that could bear
`
`on, any issue that is or may be in the case,” so that each party can “obtain the fullest possible
`
`knowledge of the issues and facts before trial.” Conti v. Am. Axle & Mfg., Inc., 326 F. App'x 900,
`
`904, 907 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978)).
`
`The issue here is not whether Mr. Nisbet’s testimony will be admissible at trial, but whether Auto
`
`Dealers can prevent Defendants from discovering this information at all. This question is not
`
`governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence, but by Rules 26(c) and 30(d)(3) of the Federal Rules
`
`of Civil Procedure, and this discovery is clearly permitted under those Rules.
`
`III. THE PROVISIONALLY SEALED TESTIMONY IS HIGHLY RELEVANT
`
`Even assuming that “relevance” were a proper objection to questions at a deposition, there
`
`was no good faith basis to assert that objection here, much less to instruct the witness not to
`
`respond. The testimony Defendants elicited from Mr. Nisbet in the portion of the transcript at
`
`issue is directly relevant to the merits of Thornhill’s claims, Thornhill’s alleged damages
`
`(including pass-on), whether Thornhill is a typical and adequate class representative, and whether
`
`the putative auto dealer class can prove impact using common evidence.
`
`It is simply remarkable for Auto Dealers to argue that Mr. Nisbet’s testimony is not
`
`discoverable because Defendants are required to look instead at “
`
`
`
`aside the fact that the DMS data that the Auto Dealers have produced is riddled with errors,3 the
`
`notion that Defendants are prohibited from using prior testimony of a witness to establish that the
`
` Opp. at 6. Setting
`
`data is wrong is absurd.
`
`
`3 See, e.g., Defs. Mot. to Compel Auto Dealers to (1) Comply with the May 12 Order and (2)
`Discontinue Obstruction of Third-Party Discovery (2:12-cv-00102, ECF No. 335).
` 5
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1332 Filed 05/05/16 Pg 10 of 28 Pg ID 23602
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` These unique practices
`
`are among the “real world” facts that other courts have held makes class certification in the auto
`
`industry impracticable. In re Class 8 Transmission Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litig., Civ. No.
`
`11-00009-SLR, 2015 WL 6181748, at *10 & n.14 (D. Del. Oct. 21, 2015).
`
`Thus, Mr. Nisbet clearly testified in the provisionally sealed portion of the transcript
`
`
`
` Defendants
`
`are not required to rely on Thornhill’s (or any other Auto Dealer’s) DMS data. They are entitled to
`
`take discovery to establish—as they are doing in deposition after deposition—that the DMS data
`
`Auto Dealers have produced are not only grossly incomplete, but wrong.4 Certainly, where the
`
`
`4 See, e.g., Ex. 1, Dep. of Auto Dealer Pltf. Landers McLarty Lee’s Summit, Mo. L.L.C. (Feb. 17,
`2016) (“Lee’s Summit”) at 226:10–227:21
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1332 Filed 05/05/16 Pg 11 of 28 Pg ID 23603
`
`Auto Dealers
`
`
`
` Defendants have the right to discover that fact.
`
`Nothing permits Auto Dealers to conceal the truth by instructing Mr. Nisbet not to answer
`
`questions under the guise of “relevance.”
`
`Auto Dealers also argue that Mr. Nisbet’s sealed testimony will not be enough to establish
`
`that Thornhill is not an adequate class member or that its claims are not typical, Opp. at 8–10, but
`
`once again they confuse discoverability of information with the factual and legal questions that
`
`will be decided later by the Court or by juries. Auto Dealers admit that credibility will be a factor
`
`in determining Thornhill’s adequacy as a class representative, Opp. at 9, and typicality will be part
`
`of the “rigorous analysis” required to ensure that Thornhill’s claims will be a reliable indicator of
`
`the claims of the members of the putative class. See In re Am. Med. Sys., Inc., 75 F.3d 1069, 1078–
`
`79 (6th Cir. 1996). If Thornhill’s sales records
`
`
`
`, there is no reason they should be used to
`
`represent the sale prices of other auto dealers. Therefore, questions about Thornhill’s pricing and
`
`sales practices, including whether Thornhill falsified its sales records, are not
`
`
`
` but are directly relevant to class certification. Opp. at 8. Auto Dealers may someday
`
`argue to Judge Battani that Thornhill’s sales practices and falsified records do not prevent it from
`
`adequately representing a class, but that is not the standard by which the permissible range of
`
`questions at a deposition is measured. Auto Dealers have no right to block discovery of this
`
`information in the first instance, regardless of their view of its ultimate sufficiency.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the provisional seal on a
`
`portion of the transcript of Mr. Nisbet’s deposition be lifted.
`
`
`
` 7
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1332 Filed 05/05/16 Pg 12 of 28 Pg ID 23604
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`
`/s/ Steven F. Cherry
`Steven F. Cherry
`David P. Donovan
`Patrick J. Carome
`Dyanne Griffith
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Washington, D.C. 20006
`Tel.: (202) 663-6000
`Fax: (202) 663-6363
`steven.cherry@wilmerhale.com
`david.donovan@wilmerhale.com
`patrick.carome@wilmerhale.com
`dyanne.griffith@wilmerhale.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants DENSO Corporation,
`DENSO International America, Inc., DENSO
`International Korea Corporation, DENSO
`Korea Automotive Corporation, DENSO
`Products & Services Americas, ASMO Co., Ltd.,
`ASMO North America, LLC, ASMO Greenville
`of North Carolina, Inc., ASMO Manufacturing,
`Inc., and ASMO North Carolina Inc.
`
`Steven M. Zarowny (P33362)
`General Counsel
`DENSO International America, Inc.
`24777 Denso Drive
`Southfield, MI 48033
`Tel.: (248) 372-8252
`Fax: (248) 213-2551
`steve_zarowny@denso-diam.com
`
`
`Attorney for Defendant DENSO International
`America, Inc.
`
`SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`May 5, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1332 Filed 05/05/16 Pg 13 of 28 Pg ID 23605
`
`/s/ Barry A. Pupkin (w/consent)
`Barry A. Pupkin
`Iain R. McPhie
`Jeremy W. Dutra
`SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
`2550 M Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20037
`Tel: (202) 626-6600
`Fax: (202) 626-6780
`Barry.Pupkin@squirepb.com
`Iain.McPhie@squirepb.com
`Jeremy.Dutra@squirepb.com
`
`
`Counsel for Aisan Industry Co., Ltd., Aisan
`Corporation of America, Franklin Precision
`Industry, Inc. and Hyundam Industrial Co., Ltd.
`
`CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN &
`HAMILTON LLP
`
`/s/ Jeremy Calsyn (w/consent) _
`Jeremy Calsyn
`Bradley Justus
`CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN &
`HAMILTON LLP
`2000 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Tel.: (202) 974-1500
`Fax: (202) 974-1999
`jcalsyn@cgsh.com
`bjustus@cgsh.com
`
`/s/ Howard B. Iwrey (w/consent)
`Howard B. Iwrey (P39635)
`DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
`39577 Woodward Ave., Suite 300
`Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
`Tel.: (248) 203-0526
`Fax: (248) 203-0763
`hiwrey@dykema.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants Aisin Seiki Co., Ltd., and
`Aisin Automotive Casting, LLC in Valve Control
`Timing Devices/Aisin Defendants (2500)
`actions
`
`By:
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`May 5, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`May 5, 2016
`
`
`
`COVINGTON & BURLING
`
`/s/ Anita F. Stork (w/consent) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
`Anita F. Stork
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`May 5, 2016
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1332 Filed 05/05/16 Pg 14 of 28 Pg ID 23606
`
`Gretchen Hoff Varner
`Cortlin H. Lannin
`Marienna H. Murch
`COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
`One Front Street, 35th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: (415) 591-6000
`Fax: (415) 955-6550
`astork@cov.com
`ghoffvarner@cov.com
`clannin@cov.com
`mmurch@cov.com
`
`
`Ashley E. Bass
`Michael J. Fanelli
`COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
`One CityCenter
`850 Tenth Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4956
`Telephone: (202) 662-6000
`Fax: (202) 662-5383
`abass@cov.com
`mfanelli@cov.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Alps Electric Co., Ltd.;
`Alps Electric (North America), Inc.; and Alps
`Automotive, Inc.
`
`And
`
`BROOKS WILKINS SHARKEY & TURCO
`PLLC
`
`/s/ Maureen T. Taylor (w/consent)___________
`Herbert C. Donovan (P51939)
`Maureen T. Taylor (P63547)
`BROOKS WILKINS SHARKEY & TURCO
`PLLC
`401 Old South Woodward, Suite 400
`Birmingham, MI 48009
`Telephone: (248) 971-1721
`Fax: (248) 971-1801
`taylor@bwst-law.com
`donovan@bwst-law.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Alps Electric Co., Ltd.;
`Alps Electric (North America), Inc.; and Alps
`
`
`
` 10
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1332 Filed 05/05/16 Pg 15 of 28 Pg ID 23607
`
`Automotive, Inc.
`
`
`__________
`
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`
`/s/ Steven A. Reiss (w/consent)
`Steven A. Reiss
`Adam C. Hemlock
`Kajetan Rozga
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`767 Fifth Avenue
`New York, New York 10153-0119
`Telephone: (212) 310-8000
`Facsimile: (212) 310-8007
`steven.reiss@weil.com
`adam.hemlock@weil.com
`kajetan.rozga@weil.com
`
`/s/ Frederick R. Juckniess (w/consent)
`Frederick R. Juckniess
`SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
`350 South Main Street, Suite 210
`Ann Arbor, MI 48104
`(734) 222-1504
`fjuckniess@schiffhardin.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Bridgestone
`Corporation and Bridgestone APM Company
`
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`
`/s/ Steven A. Reiss (w/consent)
`Steven A. Reiss
`Adam C. Hemlock
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`767 Fifth Avenue
`New York, New York 10153-0119
`Telephone: (212) 310-8000
`Facsimile: (212) 310-8007
`steven.reiss@weil.com
`adam.hemlock@weil.com
`
`/s/ Fred K. Herrmann (w/consent)____
`Fred K. Herrmann
`Joanne G. Swanson
`Matthew L. Powell
`KERR RUSSELL & WEBER PLC
`500 Woodward Avenue
`Suite 2500
`Detroit, MI 48226
` 11
`
`_________
`
`___
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`May 5, 2016
`
`
`
`
`May 5, 2016
`
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1332 Filed 05/05/16 Pg 16 of 28 Pg ID 23608
`
`__________
`
`Tel. (313) 961-0200
`Fax (313) 961-0388
`fherrmann@kerr-russell.com
`jswanson@kerr-russell.com
`mpowell@kerr-russell.com
`
`Attorneys for Calsonic Kansei Corporation and
`CalsonicKansei North America, Inc.
`
`/s/ Steven A. Reiss (w/consent)
`Steven A. Reiss
`Adam C. Hemlock
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`767 Fifth Avenue
`New York, New York 10153-0119
`Telephone: (212) 310-8000
`Facsimile: (212) 310-8007
`steven.reiss@weil.com
`adam.hemlock@weil.com
`
`/s/ Michael A. Cox (w/consent)_____ _______
`Michael A. Cox
`THE MIKE COX LAW FIRM, PLLC
`17430 Laurel Park Drive North, Suite 120 E
`Livonia, MI 48152
`Telephone: (734) 591-4002
`mc@mikecoxlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Calsonic Kansei Corporation and
`CalsonicKansei North America, Inc.
`
`SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
`
`/s/ Matthew J. Reilly (w/consent)____________
`Matthew J. Reilly
`Abram J. Ellis
`SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
`900 G Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20001
`Tel.: (202) 636-5500
`Fax: (202) 636-5502
`matt.reilly@stblaw.com
`aellis@stblaw.com
`
`George S. Wang
`Shannon K. McGovern
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`May 5, 2016
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1332 Filed 05/05/16 Pg 17 of 28 Pg ID 23609
`
`SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
`425 Lexington Avenue
`New York, N.Y. 10017
`Tel: (212) 455-2000
`Fax: (212) 455-2502
`gwang@stblaw.com
`smcgovern@stblaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Diamond Electric Mfg.
`Co., Ltd. and Diamond Electric Mfg. Corp.
`
`PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP
`
`/s/ Donald M. Barnes (w/consent)
`Donald M. Barnes
`Molly S. Crabtree
`Jay L. Levine
`Christopher C. Yook
`PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP
`1900 K Street, NW, Ste. 1110
`Washington, DC 20006
`Tel.: (202) 778-3054
`Fax: (202) 778-3063
`dbarnes@porterwright.com
`mcrabtree@porterwright.com
`jlevine@porterwright.com
`cyook@porterwright.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants G.S. Electech, Inc.,
`G.S.W. Manufacturing, Inc., and G.S. Wiring
`Systems, Inc.
`
`COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
`
`/s/ Bruce A. Baird (with consent)____________
`Bruce A. Baird
`Sarah L. Wilson
`Michael A. Fanelli
`COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
`One CityCenter
`850 Tenth Street NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`Telephone: (202) 662-6000
`Fax: (202) 662-6291
`bbaird@cov.com
`swilson@cov.com
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`May 5, 2016
`
`
`
`
`May 5, 2016
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1332 Filed 05/05/16 Pg 18 of 28 Pg ID 23610
`
`mfanelli@cov.com
`
`Anita F. Stork
`COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
`One Front Street
`35th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: (415) 591-6000
`Fax: (415) 955-6550
`astork@cov.com
`
`BROOKS WILKINS SHARKEY & TURCO
`PLLC
`Maureen T. Taylor
`BROOKS WILKINS SHARKEY & TURCO
`PLLC
`401 Old South Woodward, Suite 400
`Birmingham, MI 48009
`Telephone: (248) 971-1721
`Fax: (248) 971-1801
`taylor@bwst-law.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Keihin North America,
`Inc.
`
`
`
`ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
`
`/s/ Franklin R. Liss_(with consent)___________
`Franklin R. Liss
`Barbara H. Wootton
`Danielle M. Garten
`Matthew Tabas
`ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
`601 Massachusetts Ave, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`Tel: (202) 942-5969
`Fax: (202) 942-5999
`frank.liss@aporter.com
`barbara.wootton@aporter.com
`danielle.garten@aporter.com
`matt.tabas@aporter.com
`
`/s/ Howard B. Iwrey_(with consent)__________
`Howard B. Iwrey (P39635)
`Brian M. Moore (P58584)
`
` 14
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`May 5, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1332 Filed 05/05/16 Pg 19 of 28 Pg ID 23611
`
`DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
`39577 Woodward Ave., Suite 300
`Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
`Tel: (248) 203-0700
`Fax: (248) 203-0763
`hiwrey@dykema.com
`bmoore@dykema.com
`
`Counsel for Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. and
`North American Lighting, Inc. in HID Ballasts
`(1700) and Lamps (1200) actions
`
`PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW
`PITTMAN LLP
`
`/s/ William M. Sullivan Jr. (w/consent) _
`William M. Sullivan Jr.
`Michael L. Sibarium
`Jeetander T. Dulani
`PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW
`PITTMAN LLP
`1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20036-3006
`Telephone: (202) 663-8000
`Facsimile: (202) 663-8007
`wsullivan@pillsburylaw.com
`michael.sibarium@pillsburylaw.com
`jeetander.dulani@pillsburylaw.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants Mikuni America
`Corporation and Mikuni Corp
`
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`
`/s/ George A. Nicoud (w/consent)
`George A. Nicoud III
`Austin Schwing
`Caeli A. Higney
`Brandon W. Halter
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`555 Mission Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105-0921
`Tel.: (415) 393-8200
`Fax: (415) 393-8306
`TNicoud@gibsondunn.com
`ASchwing@gibsondunn.com
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`May 5, 2016
`
`
`May 5, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1332 Filed 05/05/16 Pg 20 of 28 Pg ID 23612
`
`____
`
`__________
`
`CHigney@gibsondunn.com
`BHalter@gibsondunn.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants Mitsuba Corporation
`and American Mitsuba Corporation
`
`HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
`
`/s/ William L. Monts, III (w/consent)
`William L. Monts, III
`HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
`555 13th Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel.: (202) 637-5731
`Fax: (202) 637-5910
`william.monts@hoganlovells.com
`
`/s/ Scott T. Seabolt (w/consent)
`Scott T. Seabolt
`FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
`500 Woodward Avenue,
`Suite 2700
`Detroit, MI 48226
`Tel.: (313) 234-7115
`Fax: (313) 234-2800
`sseabolt@foley.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants Mitsubishi Heavy
`Industries America, Inc. and Mitsubishi Heavy
`Industries Climate Control
`
`LANE POWELL PC
`
`/s/ Kenneth R. Davis II (w/consent) ________
`Craig D. Bachman
`Kenneth R. Davis II
`Darin M. Sands
`Masayuki Yamaguchi
`MODA Tower
`601 SW Second Avenue, Suite 2100
`Portland, OR 97204-3158
`Telephone: 503.778.2100
`bachmanc@lanepowell.com
`davisk@lanepowell.com
`sandsd@lanepowell.com
`yamaguchim@lanepowell.com
`
` 16
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`May 5, 2016
`
`
`May 5, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1332 Filed 05/05/16 Pg 21 of 28 Pg ID 23613
`
`
`Larry S. Gangnes
`LANE POWELL PC
`U.S. Bank Centre
`1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4200
`PO Box 91302
`Seattle, WA 98111-9402
`Telephone: 206.223.7000
`gangnesl@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
`richard.bisio@kkue.com
`ron.nixon@kkue.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp.
`and Nachi America Inc.
`
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`
`/s/ Jeffrey L. Kessler (w/consent)_____________
`A. Paul Victor
`Jeffrey L. Kessler
`Jeffrey J. Amato
`Molly M. Donovan
`Elizabeth A. Cate
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166
`Telephone: (212) 294-6700
`Facsimile: (212) 294-4700
`pvictor@winston.com
`jkessler@winston.com
`mmdonovan@winston.com
`jamato@winston.com
`ecate@winston.com
`
`Fred K. Herrmann (P49519)
`KERR, RUSSELL AND WEBER, PLC
`500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 2500
`Detroit, MI 48226
`Tel. (313) 961-0200
`
` 17
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`May 5, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1332 Filed 05/05/16 Pg 22 of 28 Pg ID 23614
`
`fherrmann@kerr-russell.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants NTN Corporation and
`NTN USA Corporation
`
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`
`/s/ Jeffrey L. Kessler (w/consent)_____________
`Jeffrey L. Kessler
`A. Paul Victor
`Eva W. Cole
`Jeffrey J. Amato
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166-4193
`(212) 294-6700 (t)
`(212) 294-4700 (f)
`JKessler@winston.com
`PVictor@winston.com
`EWCole@winston.com
`JAmato@winston.com
`
`Brandon Duke
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`1111 Louisiana Street, 25th Floor
`Houston, TX 77002
`(713) 651-2636 (t)
`(713) 651-2700 (f)
`BDuke@winston.com
`
`Counsel for Panasonic Corporation and
`Panasonic Corporation of North America
`
`ALLEN & OVERY LLP
`
`/s/ John Roberti (w/consent)________________
`John Roberti
`Matthew R. Boucher
`ALLEN & OVERY LLP
`1101 New York Avenue NW
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`202-683-3800
`john.roberti@allenovery.com
`matthew.boucher@allenovery.com
`
`Michael S. Feldberg
`
` 18
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`May 5, 2016
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`May 5, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`
`2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM Doc # 1332 Filed 05/05/16 Pg 23 of 28 Pg ID 23615
`
`ALLEN & OVERY LLP
`1221 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10020
`212-610-6360
`michael.feldberg@allenovery.com
`
`William R. Jansen (P36688)
`Michael G. Brady (P57331)
`WARNER NORCROSS & JUDD LLP
`2000 Town Center, Suite 2700
`Southfield, MI 48075-1318
`248-784-5000
`wjansen@wnj.com
`mbrady@wnj.com
`
`Counsel for Robert Bosch LLC and Robert Bosch
`GmbH
`
`DUBOIS, BRYANT & CAMPBELL, LLP
`
`/s