321 F.Supp.2d 1039 (N.D.Iowa 2004), C00-35, Goss Intern. Corp. v. Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd.

• Citation: 321 F.Supp.2d 1039
• Party Name: GOSS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. TOKYO KIKAI SEISAKUSHO, LTD, a Japanese corporation; and TKS (U.S.A.), Inc., a Delaware corporation; Defendants.
• Case Date: May 26, 2004
• Court: United States District Courts, 8th Circuit

Page 1039

321 F.Supp.2d 1039 (N.D.Iowa 2004)

GOSS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff,

v.

TOKYO KIKAI SEISAKUSHO, LTD, a Japanese corporation; and TKS (U.S.A.), Inc., a Delaware corporation; Defendants.

No. C00-35-LRR.

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Central Division.

May 26, 2004

Page 1040

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 1041

Bradley P. Nelson, Ian H. Fisher, Jose A. Lopez, Mary Beth Wynn-Smith, Steven A. Weiss, William G. Schopf, Schopf & Weiss, Chicago, IL, Patrick M. Roby, Robert M. Hogg, Elderkin Law Firm, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Plaintiff.

Barry J. Reingold, Perkins Coie, LLP, Lawrence R. Walders, Neil R. Ellis, Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, LLP, Washington, DC, Hoken S. Seki, Hoken S. Seki Law Offices, Lake Forest, IL, Nicholas (Tre) Critelli, III, Nicholas V. Critelli, Jr., Nicholas Critelli Assoc, Des Moines, IA, Peter J. Toren, Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants.

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

READE, District Judge.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. BACKGROUND .......................................................... 1042

2. DISCUSSION .......................................................... 1043

   A. Motion for a New Trial ....................................... 1043

   1. Standard of Review ...................................... 1043

   2. Analysis ................................................ 1044

   a. Whether the evidence supported the jury verdict ...... 1044

   i. Dallas Morning News sale ........................ 1044

   ii. Orlando Sentinel sale ........................... 1046

   iii. Newark Star Ledger sale ......................... 1047

   b. Whether the jury instructions properly apprised the

   jury of the issues and the applicable law .......... 1047

   i. Product comparability ........................... 1048

   ii. Price comparison ................................ 1048

   iii. Definition of "intent" .......................... 1049

   iv. Lost sales and price suppression damages ........ 1049

   c. Whether the court committed legal errors ............. 1050

   i. Whether the court admitted improper evidence .... 1050

   ii. Whether the court improperly excluded evidence .. 1051

   B. Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law ....................... 1052

   1. Standard of Review ...................................... 1052

   2. Analysis ................................................ 1052

   a. Whether Goss met its burden of proof with regard to

   each element of its claim .......................... 1052

   i. Evidence that TKS commonly and systematically

   sold newspaper press printing units within the

   United States at prices substantially below the

   prices of comparable printing units in Japan .. 1052

   ii. Evidence that TKS intended to injure or destroy

   an industry in the United States .............. 1053

   iii. Evidence that TKS injured Goss .................. 1054

   b. Whether the evidence supports the jury's finding of

   injury ............................................. 1055

3. CONCLUSION .......................................................... 1055

   Page 1042

   This matter is before the court on Defendants Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd.'s and TKS (U.S.A.), Inc.'s (collectively "TKS") Motion for a New Trial (docket No. 417) and Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (docket No. 418). Following an eleven-day trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff Goss International Corporation ("Goss") on its claims that TKS engaged in dumping in violation of the Antidumping Act of 1916, 15 U.S.C. § 72 (the "1916 Act"). Specifically, the jury found that TKS caused injury to Goss with respect to three sales: the Dallas Morning News (the "DMN") in 1996, the Orlando Sentinel (the "OS") in 1997, and the Newark Star Ledger (the "NSL") in 1997. The jury awarded damages to Goss totaling $10,539,949.

   I. BACKGROUND

   Goss Graphic Systems, Inc., was a manufacturer and supplier of newspaper presses, newspaper press additions and other printing press systems for the newspaper, advertising and commercial printing and publishing markets. Goss is the successor to the business and assets of Goss Graphic Systems, Inc. Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd., is a Japanese corporation with its principal place of business in Tokyo, Japan which manufactures newspaper presses and newspaper press additions and distributes such products in Japan, the United States and other countries through its subsidiaries. TKS (U.S.A.), Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Richardson, Texas which imports, markets and sells in the United States newspaper presses and newspaper press additions manufactured by Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd.

   Goss initiated this lawsuit against TKS in May, 2000 alleging claims against TKS under the 1916 Act. The 1916 Act provides in pertinent part:

   It shall be unlawful for any person importing or assisting in importing any articles from any foreign country into the United States, commonly and systematically to import, sell or cause to be imported or sold such articles within the United States at a price substantially less than the actual market value or wholesale price of such articles, at the time of exportation to the United States, in the principal markets of the country of their production, or of other foreign countries to which they are commonly exported after adding to such market value or wholesale price, freight, duty and other charges and expenses necessarily incident to the importation and sale thereof in the United States: Provided, That such act or acts be done with the intent of destroying or injuring an industry in the United States, or of preventing the establishment of an industry in the United States or of restraining or monopolizing any part of the trade and commerce in such articles in the United States.

   15 U.S.C. § 72. Goss alleged in its Complaint that "[f]or years [TKS] has offered and sold Newspaper Presses and Newspaper Press additions in the United States at prices substantially less than their actual market value in other countries, after adding freight, tariffs and other charges and expenses. [TKS has] undertaken this conduct--called 'dumping'--in a deliberate effort to destroy or injure the United States Newspaper Press Industry."

   The case was tried to a jury beginning on November 17, 2003 and was submitted to the jury on December 3, 2003, after eleven days of trial.¹ The jury returned a

   Page 1043

   verdict in favor of Goss on December 3, 2003. The jury awarded to Goss lost profits and the opportunity cost of capital relating to lost profits with regard to three sales: (1) the Dallas Morning News in 1996; (2) the Orlando Sentinel in 1997; and (3) the Newark Star Ledger in 1997. The jury allocated damages as follows:

   TKS now moves for a new trial pursuant to Rule 59(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50(a) and (b). Neither party expressly requested oral argument on TKS's Motion for a New Trial or Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and the court concludes that no further argument is required. Therefore, this matter is now fully submitted.

   II. DISCUSSION

   A. Motion for a New Trial

   1. Standard of Review

   Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) provides that "in an action in which there has been a trial by jury," the court may grant a new trial "for any of the reasons for which new trials have heretofore been granted in actions at law in the courts of the United States." Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(a). The court may grant a new trial to all or any of the parties on all issues or on particular issues. Id. The authority to grant a new trial is within the discretion of the district court. Gray v. Bicknell, 86 F.3d 1472, 1480-81 (8th Cir. 1996). The district court's denial of a motion for new trial is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Id. at 1480-81.

   The standard for granting a new trial is whether the verdict is against "the great weight of the evidence." Butler v. French, 83 F.3d 942, 944 (8th Cir. 1996). Any other standard " 'would destroy the role of the jury as the principal trier of the facts, and would enable the trial judge to disregard the jury's verdict at will." ' White v. Pence, 961 F.2d 776, 780 (8th Cir. 1992) (quoting Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Aalco Wrecking Co., 466 F.2d 179, 187 (8th Cir. 1972)). In evaluating a motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule 59(a), the "key question is whether a new trial should have been granted to avoid a miscarriage of justice." McKnight v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 36 F.3d 1396, 1400 (8th Cir. 1994). A new trial is appropriate when the first trial, through a verdict against the weight of the evidence or legal errors at trial, resulted in a miscarriage of justice. See White, 961 F.2d at 780. A miscarriage of justice occurs when there is insufficient evidence to support the verdict. Douglas County Bank & Trust Co. v. United Fin. Inc., 207 F.3d 473, 478 (8th Cir. 2000).

   An additional ground for granting a new trial is improper jury instructions which cause material prejudice. See Fink v. Foley-Belsaw Co., 983 F.2d 111, 114 (8th Cir. 1993). The district court is

   Page 1044

   afforded broad discretion to instruct the jury in the form and language it considers fair and adequate to present the substantive law. Grogan v. Garner, 806 F.2d 829, 836 (8th Cir. 1986). A party is entitled to an instruction reflecting that party's theory of the case if the instruction is legally correct and there is evidence to support the instruction. Bursch v. Beardsley & Piper, 971 F.2d 108, 112 (8th Cir. 1992). However, a party is not entitled to a specific formulation of an instruction. United States v. Ribaste, 905 F.2d 1140, 1143 (8th Cir. 1990). Jury instructions, taken as a whole and viewed in light of the evidence and the applicable law, must fairly and adequately...