Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 837, PageID.11285 Filed 10/10/14 Page 1 of 8
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`IN RE AUTOMOTIVE PARTS
`ANTITRUST LITIGATION
`
`
`ALL PARTS
`
`
`THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
`ALL ACTIONS
`
`
`
`Master File No. 12-md-02311
`Honorable Marianne O. Battani
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`END-PAYOR PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS TO MASTER’S ORDER
`REGARDING MOTION TO MODIFY STIPULATED ORDER OF
`DISCOVERY
`
`By this motion, End-Payor Plaintiffs (“EPPs”) seek the identification of
`
`
`
`vehicle models subject to or affected by the conduct described in the plea
`
`agreements of those defendants who have pled guilty to price-fixing and bid-
`
`rigging component parts of motor vehicles (“Guilty Pleading Defendants”). The
`
`United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) does not object to this limited
`
`discovery, and Guilty Pleading Defendants have not identified any burden or
`
`expense in providing it. Other than the discovery stay entered pursuant to the
`
`request of DOJ, there is no general stay of discovery in these cases. EPPs
`
`respectfully request that the Court review the Master’s October 8, 2014 order (ECF
`
`No. 835) and amend it to require Guilty Pleading Defendants in all product cases
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`IN RE AUTOMOTIVE PARTS
`ANTITRUST LITIGATION
`
`
`ALL PARTS
`
`
`THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
`ALL ACTIONS
`
`
`
`Master File No. 12-md-02311
`Honorable Marianne O. Battani
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`END-PAYOR PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS TO MASTER’S ORDER
`REGARDING MOTION TO MODIFY STIPULATED ORDER OF
`DISCOVERY
`
`By this motion, End-Payor Plaintiffs (“EPPs”) seek the identification of
`
`
`
`vehicle models subject to or affected by the conduct described in the plea
`
`agreements of those defendants who have pled guilty to price-fixing and bid-
`
`rigging component parts of motor vehicles (“Guilty Pleading Defendants”). The
`
`United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) does not object to this limited
`
`discovery, and Guilty Pleading Defendants have not identified any burden or
`
`expense in providing it. Other than the discovery stay entered pursuant to the
`
`request of DOJ, there is no general stay of discovery in these cases. EPPs
`
`respectfully request that the Court review the Master’s October 8, 2014 order (ECF
`
`No. 835) and amend it to require Guilty Pleading Defendants in all product cases
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 837, PageID.11286 Filed 10/10/14 Page 2 of 8
`
`to substantively respond to EPPs’ proposed interrogatory for the benefit of the
`
`Court, the Master, all parties, and interested third-parties. Attached to these
`
`objections as Exhibit 1 is the proposed interrogatory concerning affected vehicle
`
`models that EPPs seek to serve on Guilty Pleading Defendants.
`
`
`
`On August 21, 2014, EPPs moved to modify the Stipulated Order of
`
`Discovery of December 23, 2013 (ECF No. 664) (“Discovery Stay”) as modified
`
`by the Court’s order of June 25, 2014 (ECF No. 750). See ECF No. 783. EPPs
`
`subsequently supplemented this motion (ECF Nos. 780, 790). On September 8,
`
`2014, the Court referred EPPs’ motion to the Master for resolution (ECF No. 803).
`
`Later that day, certain Guilty Pleading Defendants responded that they took no
`
`position on EPPs’ request to modify the Discovery Stay. These Defendants stated,
`
`however, that an order authorizing service of EPPs’ proposed interrogatory in all
`
`product cases and requiring Guilty Pleading Defendants in all product cases to
`
`respond to the proposed interrogatory would be premature and inappropriate (ECF
`
`No. 804).
`
`
`
`On October 8, 2014, the Master issued an order allowing EPPs to “serve on
`
`those defendants who have pled guilty or agreed to plead guilty an interrogatory
`
`seeking the makes, model names, model numbers, model platforms and model
`
`years of those motor vehicles for which parts were involved in the conduct
`
`described in their guilty pleas . . . in all cases that are part of MDL 2311 where
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 837, PageID.11287 Filed 10/10/14 Page 3 of 8
`
`discovery is underway” (emphasis added). The order also permits “. . . all
`
`Defendants [to] retain whatever rights they may have to object to the requested
`
`discovery in their particular cases” (emphasis added) (ECF No. 835). EPPs object
`
`to this order per Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(2) and the Court’s Order Appointing a
`
`Master (ECF No. 792), seeking the Court’s review de novo of the Master’s order
`
`pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f).
`
`
`
`EPPs believe the limited discovery we seek is proper. Guilty Pleading
`
`Defendants have entered into plea agreements for bid-rigging and price-fixing
`
`component parts of motor vehicles. The vehicle models subject to or affected by
`
`their conduct underlie these plea agreements, which are a matter of public record—
`
`Defendant Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd., for example, entered into its plea
`
`agreement almost three years ago. To the extent that Guilty Pleading Defendants
`
`in particular cases where the Court has not yet decided motions to dismiss wish to
`
`object on prematurity grounds, the objection is purely dilatory in nature because
`
`there can be no doubt that the Court will uphold the plausibility of EPPs’ claims
`
`for relief against defendants who have pled guilty or agreed to do so. EPPs
`
`therefore object to the Master’s order for the following reasons:
`
`
`
`First, the DOJ does not object to EPPs’ request to modify the Discovery
`
`Stay. DOJ’s consent to this discovery vitiates any objection defendants may have
`
`based on the Discovery Stay that resulted from DOJ’s motion.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 837, PageID.11288 Filed 10/10/14 Page 4 of 8
`
`
`
`Second, Defendants will not face any burden or expense in identifying
`
`vehicle models affected by the collusion or coordination described in their plea
`
`agreements. Several defendants who pled guilty have already agreed to provide
`
`this information to EPPs. By allowing defendants to retain their rights to object to
`
`the requested discovery in their particular cases, the Master’s order simply enables
`
`delay and hinders efficient case management—specifically, the “just, speedy, and
`
`inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding” under Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.
`
`
`
`Third, the benefits of Defendants identifying affected vehicle models are
`
`extraordinary. The number of actions in this multi-district litigation has grown
`
`substantially since both the centralization of MDL 2311 in this Court and the
`
`Court-ordered protocols for the Initial Cases1, posing challenges to managing pre-
`
`trial proceedings. This Court has already noted the existence of similar
`
`conspiracies with overlapping defendants arising from the same government
`
`investigation as well as an overlap of parties and counsel. The Court, the Master,
`
`all parties, and interested third-parties will benefit from defendants specifically
`
`identifying the affected vehicle model information at issue in the guilty pleas. This
`
`information will substantially assist
`
`in structuring pre-trial proceedings,
`
`
`
`1As set forth in the Discovery Stay, the Initial Cases comprise of the Wire Harness Cases (Case
`No. 2:12-cv-00100), Instrument Panel Clusters Cases (Case No. 2:12-cv-00200), Fuel Senders
`Cases (Case No. 2:12-cv-00300), Heater Control Panel Cases (Case No. 2:12-cv-00400), and any
`other case in this District that purports to assert similar claims based on the same products.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 837, PageID.11289 Filed 10/10/14 Page 5 of 8
`
`particularly how to coordinate party and non-party discovery and class certification
`
`in these cases.
`
`
`
`EPPs respectfully request that the Court consider EPPs’ objections to the
`
`Master’s order. EPPs ask that the Court grant the motion to modify the Discovery
`
`Stay to allow EPPs to serve limited discovery on the Guilty Pleading Defendants in
`
`all cases that are part of MDL 2311 regarding identification of vehicle models
`
`affected by their collusion or coordination and requiring Guilty Pleading
`
`Defendants in all product cases to substantively respond to the proposed
`
`interrogatory.
`
`Date: October 10, 2014
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Steven N. Williams
`Frank C. Damrell
`Steven N. Williams
`Adam J. Zapala
`Elizabeth Tran
`COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY,
`LLP
`San Francisco Airport Office Center
`840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
`Burlingame, CA 94010
`Telephone: (650) 697-6000
`Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
`fdamrell@cpmlegal.com
`swilliams@cpmlegal.com
`azapala@cpmlegal.com
`etran@cpmlegal.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 837, PageID.11290 Filed 10/10/14 Page 6 of 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Hollis Salzman
`Hollis Salzman
`Bernard Persky
`William V. Reiss
`ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI
`L.L.P.
`601 Lexington Avenue, Suite 3400
`New York, NY 10022
`Telephone: (212) 980-7400
`Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
`hsalzman@rkmc.com
`bpersky@rkmc.com
`wvreiss@rkmc.com
`
`/s/ Marc. M. Seltzer
`Marc M. Seltzer
`Steven G. Sklaver
`SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
`1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
`Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
`Telephone: (310) 789-3100
`Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
`mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com
`ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com
`
`Terrell W. Oxford
`Warren T. Burns
`SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
`901 Main Street, Suite 5100
`Dallas, Texas 75202
`Telephone: (214) 754-1900
`Facsimile: (214)754-1933
`toxford@susmangodfrey.com
`wburns@susmangodfrey.com
`
`Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel for the
`Proposed End-Payor Plaintiffs Classes
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 837, PageID.11291 Filed 10/10/14 Page 7 of 8
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ E. Powell Miller
`E. Powell Miller
`Adam T. Schnatz
`THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
`The Miller Law Firm, P.C.
`950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300
`Rochester, Michigan 48307
`epm@millerlawpc.com
`ats@millerlawpc.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Interim Liaison
`Counsel for the Proposed End-Payor
`Plaintiffs Classes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 837, PageID.11292 Filed 10/10/14 Page 8 of 8
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`I, Steven N. Williams, hereby certify that I caused a true and correct copy of
`
`the END-PAYOR PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS TO MASTER’S ORDER
`
`REGARDING MOTION TO MODIFY STIPULATED ORDER OF
`
`DISCOVERY to be served via e-mail upon all registered counsel of record via the
`
`Court’s CM/ECF system on October 10, 2014.
`
`/s/ Steven N. Williams
`Steven N. Williams
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
