Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 853, PageID.11458 Filed 10/27/14 Page 1 of 19
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RESPONDING DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO END-PAYOR
`PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS TO MASTER’S ORDER REGARDING
`MOTION TO MODIFY STIPULATED ORDER OF DISCOVERY
`
`The undersigned Defendants respectfully request the Court overrule
`
`the objections by end-payor plaintiffs (“EPPs”) to the Master’s October 8, 2014
`
`Order (the “Order” or “Master’s Order”) on EPPs’ motion to modify the Stipulated
`
`Order of Discovery of December 23, 2013 (Dkt. 664) (the “DOJ Discovery Stay”
`
`or “the Stay”), as modified by the Court’s Order of June 25, 2014 (Dkt. 750). The
`
`Master’s Order granted EPPs’ request to serve an interrogatory upon defendants
`
`seeking identification of the makes and models for the motor vehicles whose parts
`
`were included in guilty pleas negotiated with the DOJ, but sensibly limited the
`
`relief to cases “where discovery is underway,” and further ruled that “Defendants
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 853, PageID.11459 Filed 10/27/14 Page 2 of 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`retain whatever rights they may have to object to the requested discovery in their
`
`particular cases.” Dkt. 835.
`
`The EPPs seek to drastically expand the Order by requiring all
`
`defendants that have pleaded guilty or agreed to plead guilty in the context of a
`
`DOJ investigation to “substantively respond” to the interrogatory. Dkt. 837 at 1-2.
`
`Thus, while styled as a request to “modify” the DOJ Discovery Stay, the EPPs’
`
`proposed order goes much further: It seeks to accelerate discovery in all “cases
`
`that are presently or become part” of this MDL, to strip defendants of their right to
`
`object to such discovery, and to deprive many defendants of the benefit of
`
`negotiated agreements with EPPs to stay proceedings pending filing of amended
`
`complaints. Dkt. 837-2 at 1. EPPs’ proposed modification to the Master’s Order
`
`should be overruled for the following reasons:
`
`First, the Master’s ruling is consistent with the existing DOJ
`
`Discovery Stay adopted by the Court. The Stay requires that any discovery “be
`
`conducted in accordance with the case management order and discovery schedule
`
`applicable to the particular case.” Dkt. 664 at 5 (emphasis added). Moreover, it
`
`“does not foreclose any party from objecting on any grounds available to it under
`
`the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure . . . or supersede any other stay of or
`
`limitation on discovery that may be imposed in any existing or subsequent case
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 853, PageID.11460 Filed 10/27/14 Page 3 of 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`management order or discovery schedule . . . .” Id.1 EPPs’ proposed order, in
`
`contrast, would not only authorize EPPs to prematurely serve their proposed
`
`interrogatory in cases in which a discovery schedule has neither been negotiated
`
`among the parties nor entered by the Court, but also preclude defendants from
`
`interposing any valid objections in response.
`
`Second, the Master’s Order recognizes that the various product cases
`
`in this MDL are differently situated, by design of the parties and the Court and by
`
`virtue of the nature of EPPs’ allegations. Motions to dismiss have not yet been
`
`briefed, let alone decided, in many cases. In others, proceedings are effectively
`
`stayed by agreement of the parties (including EPPs) pending the filing of amended
`
`complaints.2 And within particular cases, not all defendants are in the same
`
`
`1
`The undersigned defendants also opposed EPPs’ original motion to modify
`the DOJ Discovery Stay “[t]o the extent that the [EPPs] . . . seek a blanket
`order authorizing service of the proposed interrogatory in all product cases
`and requiring Defendants in all product cases to respond to the proposed
`interrogatory” and “reserve[d] – as the DOJ Discovery Stay already
`contemplates – any other objections that may be available to them in their
`respective cases . . . as well as objections addressed to the specific substance
`of the [EPPs’] request.” Dkt. 804 at 1-2.
`
`2
`
`Defendants in many actions waived service or agreed to accept service in
`exchange for EPPs agreeing to stay the proceedings pending the filing of an
`amended consolidated complaint. See, e.g., Stipulation and Order Regarding
`Accepting Service of Complaints and Extension of Time, Barron v. Koito
`Mfg. Co., Ltd., No. 2:13-cv-12483-MOB-MKM (E.D. Mich. Nov. 21, 2013),
`ECF No. 7; Stipulation and Order Regarding Accepting Service of
`Complaints and Extension of Time, Adams v. Diamond Electric Mfg. Co.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 853, PageID.11461 Filed 10/27/14 Page 4 of 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`position: some have not been properly served, and some might have legitimate
`
`jurisdictional defenses that have not yet been addressed through a motion to
`
`dismiss. EPPs’ proposal for across-the-board discovery is thus unworkable as a
`
`procedural matter. EPPs—who have unquestionably benefitted from stipulated
`
`delays in later-filed cases— should not be permitted to prematurely demand
`
`discovery in cases where motions to dismiss have not yet been resolved solely
`
`because of EPPs’ unfounded prediction that such motions, even those that have yet
`
`to be filed, will be unsuccessful. See Dkt. 837 at 3.
`
`Third, the Master’s ruling is consistent with the Court’s management
`
`of the MDL to date. During his September 16, 2014 conference with the parties,
`
`the Master explained his understanding of the Court’s preference that discovery in
`
`later-filed cases begin after the motion to dismiss phase. Moreover, the Court has
`
`previously recognized how differently the cases and defendants are postured—not
`
`just procedurally, but factually. At the most recent status conference held on
`
`October 8, 2014, the Court emphasized that neither EPPs nor any other plaintiff
`
`groups in this MDL have alleged a single, overarching conspiracy across auto parts
`
`and suppliers. See Hr. Tr. at 28, 80.3 The Court therefore ordered the parties only
`
`
`Ltd., No. 2:13-cv-14173-MOB-MKM (E.D. Mich. Nov. 13, 2013), ECF No.
`7.
`
`3 Many defendants in later-filed cases are named only in one or two product
`cases. By way of example, Diamond Electric Mfg. Co., Ltd. and its U.S.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 853, PageID.11462 Filed 10/27/14 Page 5 of 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`in the Wire Harness cases, which are most advanced, to proceed with a deposition
`
`protocol and class certification schedule. EPPs fail to explain how serving their
`
`proposed interrogatory now in all MDL cases will aid the Court and parties in
`
`coordinating discovery and class certification, which are already moving forward
`
`in earlier-filed cases. Nothing in the Master’s Order forecloses EPPs from serving
`
`the proposed interrogatory in later-filed cases at the appropriate juncture.
`
`Finally, the Court should adopt the Master’s ruling that “all
`
`Defendants retain whatever rights they may have to object to the requested
`
`discovery in their particular cases.” Dkt. 835. EPPs’ request that the Court order
`
`defendants to “substantively respond” to their proposed interrogatory seeks to
`
`preclude defendants from asserting objections—an unreasonable and prejudicial
`
`shortcut of the usual discovery process. Indeed, whether or not the Court
`
`concludes that now is the appropriate time for EPPs to serve their interrogatory on
`
`all defendants in all cases, EPPs have made no showing that defendants should be
`
`unilaterally deprived of their rights under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to
`
`assert objections based on timing, form, substance, or other particularized grounds,
`
`as with all other discovery. Defendants have a fundamental right to object to
`
`
`subsidiary are defendants solely in Ignition Coils, where EPPs have yet to
`file an amended consolidated complaint. See In re Ignition Coils, No. 2:13-
`cv-01403 (E.D. Mich.); Adams v. Diamond Electric Mfg. Co., Ltd., No.
`2:13-cv-14173-MOB-MKM (E.D. Mich.).
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 853, PageID.11463 Filed 10/27/14 Page 6 of 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`discovery, and EPPs cannot steamroll that right with vague and unfounded
`
`assertions of delay and inefficient case management.
`
`Wherefore, the undersigned defendants respectfully request that this
`
`Court overrule EPPs’ objections to, and adopt, the Master’s Order of October 8,
`
`2014.
`
`Dated: October 27, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Matthew J. Reilly
` Matthew J. Reilly
`Abram J. Ellis
`David T. Shogren
`1155 F Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20004
`Telephone: (202) 636-5500
`Facsimile: (202) 636-5502
`matt.reilly@stblaw.com
`aellis@stblaw.com
`dshogren@stblaw.com
`
`George S. Wang
`Shannon K. McGovern
`425 Lexington Avenue
`New York, NY 10017
`Telephone: (212) 455-2000
`Facsimile: (212) 455-2502
`gwang@stblaw.com
`smcgovern@stblaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Stanley Electric
`Co., Ltd.; Stanley Electric U.S. Co., Inc.; and
`II Stanley Co., Inc.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 853, PageID.11464 Filed 10/27/14 Page 7 of 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Matthew J. Reilly
`Matthew J. Reilly
`Abram J. Ellis
`David T. Shogren
`1155 F Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20004
`Telephone: (202) 636-5500
`Facsimile: (202) 636-5502
`matt.reilly@stblaw.com
`aellis@stblaw.com
`dshogren@stblaw.com
`
`George S. Wang
`Shannon K. McGovern
`425 Lexington Avenue
`New York, NY 10017
`Telephone: (212) 455-2000
`Facsimile: (212) 455-2502
`gwang@stblaw.com
`smcgovern@stblaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Diamond Electric
`Mfg. Co., Ltd. and Diamond Electric Mfg.
`Corp.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 853, PageID.11465 Filed 10/27/14 Page 8 of 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Heather L. Kafele (with consent)
`Heather L. Kafele
`Keith R. Palfin
`Alison R. Welcher
`SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
`801 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20004
`(202) 508-8097
`(202) 508-8100 (facsimile)
`heather.kafele@shearman.com
`keith.palfin@shearman.com
`alison.welcher@shearman.com
`Brian M. Akkashian
`PAESANO AKKASHIAN, PC
`132 N. Old Woodward Avenue
`Birmingham, MI 48009
`(248) 792-6886
`bakkashian@paesanoakkashian.com
`
`Attorneys for JTEKT Corporation, JTEKT
`North America Corporation, and JTEKT
`Automotive North America, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 853, PageID.11466 Filed 10/27/14 Page 9 of 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Howard B. Iwrey (with consent)
`Howard B. Iwrey (P39635)
`Brian M. Moore (P58584)
`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
`
`Franklin R. Liss
`Barbara H. Wootton
`Danielle M. Garten
`ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
`555 Twelfth Street NW
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (202) 942-5969
`Fax: (202) 942-5999
`frank.liss@aporter.com
`barbara.wootton@aporter.com
`danielle.garten@aporter.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants Koito
`Manufacturing Co., Ltd and North American
`Lighting, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 853, PageID.11467 Filed 10/27/14 Page 10 of 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Brian Byrne (with consent)
`Brian Byrne
`Ryan M. Davis
`Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
`2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Suite 9000
`Washington, DC 20006
`Tel: 202-974-1850
`Fax: 202-974-1999
`bbyrne@cgsh.com
`
`Howard B. Iwrey (P39635)
`Brian M. Moore (P58584)
`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 Defendants Valeo S.A., Valeo
`Inc., Valeo Electrical Systems, Inc., and
`Valeo Climate Control Corp.
`
`
`
`
`/s/ William R. Jansen (with consent)
`William R. Jansen (P36688)
`Michael G. Brady (P57331)
`WARNER NORCROSS & JUDD LLP
`2000 Town Center, Suite 2700
`Southfield, MI 48075
`Telephone: (248) 784-5000
`Facsimile: (248) 784-5005
`wjansen@wnj.com
`mbrady@wnj.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Robert Bosch
`GmbH, Bosch Electrical Drives Co., Ltd.,
`and Robert Bosch LLC
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 853, PageID.11468 Filed 10/27/14 Page 11 of 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Howard B. Iwrey (with consent)
`James P. Feeney (P13335)
`Howard B. Iwrey (P39635)
`Benjamin W. Jeffers (P57161)
`DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
`39577 Woodward Avenue, Suite 300
`Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
`Tel: 248 203-0526
`Fax: 248-203-0763
`jfeeney@dykema.com
`hiwrey@dykema.com
`bjeffers@dykema.com
`dcouncil@dykema.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants TRW Automotive
`Holdings Corp. and TRW Deutschland
`Holding GmbH
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Craig P. Seebald (with consent)
`Craig P. Seebald
`Alden L. Atkins
`Lindsey R. Vaala
`VINSON & ELKINS LLP
`2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Suite 500 West
`Washington, DC 20037
`Telephone: (202) 639-6585
`Facsimile: (202) 879-8995
`cseebald@velaw.com
`aatkins@velaw.com
`lvaala@velaw.com
`
`Counsel for Hitachi Automotive Systems,
`Ltd., Hitachi Automotive Systems Americas,
`Inc., and Hitachi, Ltd.
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 853, PageID.11469 Filed 10/27/14 Page 12 of 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Debra H. Dermody (with consent) .
`Debra H. Dermody
`Michelle A. Mantine
`REED SMITH LLP
`225 Fifth Avenue
`Pittsburgh, PA 15222
`Telephone: (412) 288-3302/4268
`Fax: (412) 288-3063
`Email: ddermody@reedsmith.com
`mmantine@reedsmith.com
`Howard B. Iwrey (P39635)
`Brian M. Moore (P58584)
`
`DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
`39577 Woodward Avenue
`Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304
`Telephone: (248) 203-0526
`Fax: (248) 203-0763
`Email: hiwrey@dykema.com
`bmoore@dykema.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant SKF USA Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 853, PageID.11470 Filed 10/27/14 Page 13 of 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ James L. Cooper (with consent) .
`James L. Cooper
`Danielle Garten
`Adam Pergament
`Arnold & Porter LLP
`555 Twelfth Street NW
`Washington, DC 20004-1206
`Telephone: (202) 942-5000
`Facsimile: (202) 942-5999
`Email: James.Cooper@aporter.com
`Email: Danielle.Garten@aporter.com
`Email: Adam.Pergament@aporter.com
`
`Joanne Geha Swanson (P33594)
`Fred K. Herrmann (P49519)
`Kerr, Russell and Weber, PLC
`500 Woodward Avenue
`Suite 2500
`Detroit, MI 48226
`Telephone: (313) 961-0200
`Email: jswanson@kerr-russell.com
`Email: fherrmann@kerr-russell.com
`
`Counsel for Yamashita Rubber Co., Ltd. and
`YUSA Corporation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 853, PageID.11471 Filed 10/27/14 Page 14 of 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Steven A. Reiss (with consent) .
`Steven A. Reiss
`Adam C. Hemlock
`Kajetan Rozga
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`767 Fifth Avenue
`New York, New York 10153-0119
`Tel.: (212) 310-8000
`Fax: (212) 310-8007
`steven.reiss@weil.com
`adam.hemlock@weil.com
`kajetan.rozga@weil.com
`
`Frederick R. Juckniess
`Schiff Hardin LLP
`350 South Main Street, Suite 210
`Ann Arbor, MI 48104
`Tel.: (734) 222-1504
`fjuckniess@schiffhardin.com
`
`Counsel for Bridgestone Corporation and
`Bridgestone APM Company
`
`
`/s/ George A. Nicoud III (with consent)
`George A. Nicoud III (SBN 160111)
`tnicoud@gibsondunn.com
`Austin Schwing (SBN 211696)
`aschwing@gibsondunn.com
`Stuart McPhail (SBN 287048)
`smcphail@gibsondunn.com
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Telephone: (415) 393-8200
`Facsimile: (415) 393-8306
`
`
`Counsel for Defendants American Mitsuba
`Corporation and Mitsuba Corporation
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 853, PageID.11472 Filed 10/27/14 Page 15 of 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jeremy J. Calsyn (w/ consent) .
`Jeremy J. Calsyn
`Teale Toweill
`CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN &
`HAMILTON LLP
`2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`(202) 974-1522
`jcalsyn@cgsh.com
`
`David A. Ettinger
`HONIGMAN, MILLER, SCHWARTZ
`AND COHN LLP
`660 Woodward Avenue
`Suite 2290
`Detroit, MI 48226-3506
`(313) 465-7368
`dettinger@honigman.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants NSK Ltd. and NSK
`Americas, Inc.
`
`
`/s/ David C. Giardina (with consent) .
`David C. Giardina
`Courtney A. Rosen
`Sidley Austin LLP
`One S. Dearborn St.
`Chicago, IL 60603
`Telephone: (312) 853-7000
`Facsimile: (312) 853-7036
`Email: dgiardina@sidley.com
`Email: crosen@sidley.com
`
`Counsel for Toyo Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd.,
`Toyo Automotive Parts (USA), Inc., Toyo
`Tire North America OE Sales LLC, and
`Toyo Tire North America Manufacturing,
`Inc.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 853, PageID.11473 Filed 10/27/14 Page 16 of 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Robert J. Wierenga (with consent)
`Robert J. Wierenga (P59785)
`Suzanne L. Wahl (P71364)
`Schiff Hardin LLP
`340 S. Main Street, Suite 210
`Ann Arbor, MI 48104
`734-222-1500
`Fax: (734) 222-1501
`rwierenga@schiffhardin.com
`swahl@schiffhardin.com
`
`David M. Zinn
`John E. Schmidtlein
`Samuel Bryant Davidoff
`Williams & Connolly LLP
`725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`202-434-5000
`Fax: 202-434-5029
`dzinn@wc.com
`jschmidtlein@wc.com
`sdavidoff@wc.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants Takata Corporation
`and TK Holdings Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 853, PageID.11474 Filed 10/27/14 Page 17 of 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Terrence J. Truax (with consent)
`Terrence J. Truax
`Charles B. Sklarsky
`Michael T. Brody
`Gabriel A. Fuentes
`Daniel T. Fenske
`JENNER & BLOCK LLP
`353 N. Clark Street
`Chicago, IL 60654-3456
`ttruax@jenner.com
`csklarsky@jenner.com
`mbrody@jenner.com
`gfuentes@jenner.com
`dfenske@jenner.com
`
`Gary K. August
`ZAUSMER, KAUFMAN, AUGUST &
`CALDWELL, P.C.
`31700 Middlebelt Road
`Suite 150
`Farmington Hills, Michigan 48334-2374
`Telephone (248) 851-4111
`gaugust@zkac.com
`
`Counsel for Mitsubishi Electric
`Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric US
`Holdings, Inc., and Mitsubishi Electric
`Automotive America, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 853, PageID.11475 Filed 10/27/14 Page 18 of 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Corey W. Roush (with consent) .
`Corey W. Roush
`William L. Monts, III
`Meghan C. Edwards-Ford
`HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
`Columbia Square
`555 Thirteenth Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: 202.637.5600
`Fax: 202.637.5910
`Email: corey.roush@hoganlovells.com
` william.monts@hoganlovells.com
`meghan.edwards-ford@
`hoganlovells.com
`
`
`Counsel for Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
`America, Inc. and Mitsubishi Heavy
`Industries Climate Control, Inc.
`
`/s/ David F. DuMouchel (w/consent) .
`David F. DuMouchel (P25658)
`George B. Donnini (P66793)
`BUTZEL LONG
`150 West Jefferson, Suite 100
`Detroit, MI 48226
`Telephone: (313) 225-7000
`dumouchd@butzel.com
`donnini@butzel.com
`
`W. Todd Miller
`BAKER & MILLER PLLC
`2401 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 300
`Washington, DC 20037
`Telephone: (202)663-7820
`TMiller@bakerandmiller.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Tokai Rika Co.,
`Ltd. and TRAM, Inc.
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 853, PageID.11476 Filed 10/27/14 Page 19 of 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Matthew J. Reilly, hereby certify that on October 27, 2014, I
`
`electronically filed the foregoing Responding Defendants’ Response to End-Payor
`
`Plaintiffs’ Objections to Master’s Order Regarding Motion to Modify Stipulated
`
`Order of Discovery with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system, which will
`
`send electronic notification to all counsel of record.
`
`
`
`Dated: October 27, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Matthew J. Reilly
` Matthew J. Reilly
`SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
`1155 F Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20004
`Telephone: (202) 636-5500
`Facsimile: (202) 636-5502
`matt.reilly@stblaw.com
`
`
`
`19
`
`