723 F.2d 238 (3rd Cir. 1983), 81-2331, In re Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust Litigation

Docket Nº:81-2331 to 81-2333.
Citation:723 F.2d 238
Party Name:In re JAPANESE ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION (D.C. MDL No. 189). ZENITH RADIO CORPORATION, Appellant, v. MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD., et al. (D.C.Civ. No. 74-2451). In re JAPANESE ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION (D.C. MDL No. 189). NATIONAL UNION ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Appellant, v. MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO.
Case Date:December 05, 1983
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Page 238

723 F.2d 238 (3rd Cir. 1983)

In re JAPANESE ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION

(D.C. MDL No. 189).

ZENITH RADIO CORPORATION, Appellant,

v.

MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD., et al. (D.C.Civ.

No. 74-2451).

In re JAPANESE ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION

(D.C. MDL No. 189).

NATIONAL UNION ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Appellant,

v.

MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD., et al. (D.C.Civ.

No. 74-3247).

In re JAPANESE ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION

(D.C. MDL No. 189).

ZENITH RADIO CORPORATION

v.

MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD., et al. (D.C.Civ.

No. 74-2451).

NATIONAL UNION ELECTRIC CORPORATION

v.

MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD., et al. (D.C.Civ.

No. 74-3247) Mitsubishi Electric Corporation

("MELCO"), Appellant.

Nos. 81-2331 to 81-2333.

Argued Oct. 21 and 22, 1982.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

December 5, 1983

Page 239

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 240

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 241

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 242

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 243

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 244

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 245

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 246

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 247

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 248

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 249

Edwin P. Rome (argued), Morris L. Weisberg, William H. Roberts, Arnold I. Kalman, Kathleen Herzog Larkin, Norman E. Greenspan, Margaret B. Dardess, Blank, Rome, Comisky & McCauley, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellants, Zenith Radio Corp. and Nat. Union Elec. Corp.; Philip J. Curtis, John Borst, Jr., Zenith Radio Corp., Glenview, Ill., of counsel.

Asa D. Sokolow (argued), Renee J. Roberts, Brian G. Lustbader, Rosenman, Colin, Freund, Lewis & Cohen, Joshua F. Greenberg, Randolph S. Sherman, Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler, New York City, Franklin Poul, Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellees, Sony Corp. and Sony Corp. of America.

Louis A. Lehr, Jr. (argued), Stanley M. Lipnick, John L. Ropiequet, Carol R. Kanter, Arnstein, Gluck & Lehr, Chicago, Ill., Harry A. Short, Jr., Liebert, Short, Fitzpatrick & Lavin, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee, Sears, Roebuck and Co.; Philip M. Knox, Jr., Charles A. Tausche, Ann M. Coons, Law Dept., Sears, Roebuck and Co., Chicago, Ill., of counsel.

Thomas P. Coffey (argued), E. Houston Harsha, Karl F. Nygren, Chicago, Ill., for appellee, Motorola, Inc.; Kirkland & Ellis, Chicago, Ill., of counsel.

Henry T. Reath (argued), Terry R. Broderick, Duane, Morris & Heckscher, Philadelphia, Pa., Hoken S. Seki, Seki, Jarvis & Lynch, Chicago, Ill., John T. Dolan, Arnold B. Calmann, Crummy, Del Deo, Dolan & Purcell, Newark, N.J., for appellee, Mitsubishi Elec. Corp.

Charles F. Schirmeister (argued), Charles Z. Krueger, Reid & Priest, New York City, Thomas N. O'Neill, Jr., Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellees, Mitsubishi Corp. and Mitsubishi Intern. Corp.

Donald J. Zoeller (argued), Mudge, Rose, Guthrie & Alexander, New York City, Drinker, Biddle & Reath, Philadelphia, Pa., Liaison Counsel for appellees and for Toshiba defendants.

Whitman & Ransom, New York City, Hunt, Kerr, Bloom, Hitchner, O'Brien & Conrad, Philadelphia, Pa., for Sanyo appellees.

Kirkland & Ellis, Chicago, Ill., Obermayer, Rebmann, Maxwell & Hippel, Philadelphia, Pa., for Motorola appellee.

Wender, Murase & White, New York City, Dechert, Price & Rhoads, Philadelphia, Pa., for the Sharp appellees.

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Philadelphia, Pa., Ira M. Millstein (argued), A. Paul Victor, Joel B. Harris (argued), Weil, Gotshal & Manges, New York City, for Matsushita appellees.

William H. Barrett, Carl W. Schwarz, Metzger, Shadyac & Schwarz, Washington, D.C., for Hitachi, Ltd., Hitachi Kaden Hanbai Kabushiki Kaisha and Hitachi Sales Corp. of America.

H. William Tanaka, Lawrence R. Walders and B. Jenkins Middleton, Tanaka, Walders & Ritger, Washington, D.C., for Hitachi, Ltd., et al.

INDEX I. The Parties and the Charges 251 II. Proceedings to Date 252 A. Preliminary Substantive Rulings 252 B. Preliminary Procedural and Evidentiary Rulings 255 C.The Summary Judgment Ruling 256 III. Scope of Review 257 IV. The Trial Court Did Not Err in Considering the Summary Judgment Motions on This Record 257 V. Evidence Issues 259 A. The Propriety of in Limine Rulings 260 B. Standards for Admission of Conconspirator Statements 260 C. Rule 803(8)(C) Materials 263 1. The Court's General Approach to Rule 803(8)(C) 264 2. Reports Prepared by the United States Treasury Department Under the 1921 Antidumping Act 266 2. Findings Under the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and the Trade Act of 1974 271 4. Records and Findings of the Japanese Fair Trade Commission 271 5. Judge Hibbinbotham's Findings of Fact 275 D. Rule 702 Expert Opinion Evidence 275 1. The DePodwin Report 279 a. Parts IV and V 280 b. Part VI 280 c. Part VII 282 2. The Yamamura Report 282 3. The Nehmer Report 283 4. The Saxonhouse Report 283 5. The Haley Report 284 E.Rule 803(6) Materials 284 1. Authentication 284 2. Admissibility 287 a. The Diaries 289 (1) The Yajima Diaries 289 (2) The Yamada, Tokizane and Kozukue Diaries 291 (3) The Yamamoto Dairy 292 (4) The Okuma Diary 292 b. Internal Memoranda 293 c. Minutes of Trade Group Meetings 296 F.Rule 804(b) Materials 298 G.Rule 801(d)(2) Materials 300 H.Rules 803(24,) 804(b)(5) and 803(1) 301 I.Other Contentions 303 J.Other Evidence 303 VI. Liability Issues 303 A. Conspiracy 303 1. The Legal Standard for Sufficiency of Evidence of Conspiracy 303 2. The NUE-Zenith Theory of the Case 305 3. Evidence Supporting the NUE- Zenith Conspiracy Theory 306 a. Evidence Relating to Japanese Home Market 306 b. Evidence Relating to Exports to U.S. 310 (1) Motorola, Inc. 311 (2) Sears, Roebuck & Co. 312 (3) Sony Corporation 313 (4) MELCO, Mitsubishi Corporation and Misubishi International Corporation 314 (5) The Remaining Defendants 314 4. Proof of Injury Arising From Violation of the Antitrust Laws 315 5. The Defense of Sovereign Compulsion 315 6. The Illinois Brick Defense 315 7. Conclusion as to the Conspriacy 316 B. The Attempt to Monopolize 316 C. The Robinson-Patman Claims 316 1. Discrimination Between Japanese and American Customers 316 2. Discrimination Among American Customers 317 D. Zenith's Clayton Act Section 7 Claim 317 E. Clayton Act Injuctive Relief 318 VII. Conclusion 319 Page 250

Before SEITZ, Chief Judge, GIBBONS and MESKILL [*], Circuit Judges.

OPINION

GIBBONS, Circuit Judge.

The plaintiffs, National Union Electric Corporation (NUE) and Zenith Radio Corporation (Zenith), appeal from an order of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granting summary judgment in favor of all twenty-four defendants on their respective complaints. The NUE complaint, filed in the District of New Jersey in December 1970, as amended, names as defendants seven Japanese television manufacturers, eight of their subsidiaries, and one Japanese trading company and its United States subsidiary. The Zenith complaint, filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in September 1974, names as defendants all of those named in the NUE complaint, a few additional subsidiaries, and two American companies: Motorola, Inc., a manufacturer of consumer electronic products, and Sears Roebuck & Co., a retailer. On January 10, 1975, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the NUE case to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407 (1976 & Supp. V 1981), for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings with the Zenith case. 1 The defendants and the charges made against them are described more particularly hereafter. Although counterclaims filed by several of the defendants are pending unresolved in the district court, we have jurisdiction over the grant of summary judgment on the NUE and Zenith claims because that court, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), directed the entry of a final judgment as to fewer than all claims. 2 We

Page 251

conclude that as to most of the defendants the record discloses material issues of disputed fact which made the entry of summary judgment improper. Thus we reverse, except as hereafter noted.

I. The Parties and the Charges

NUE is the corporate successor to Emerson Radio Co., a manufacturer of radio and television receivers, which ceased production of television receivers in February 1970 when it could no longer conduct that activity profitably. NUE claims that it was forced from the market by the unlawful activities of the defendants. Zenith is still a major manufacturer of television receivers. It claims that it has incurred operating losses and lost profits because of the unlawful activities of the defendants.

Both plaintiffs allege a conspiracy to drive all American manufacturers of television receivers out of business by a "scheme to raise, fix and maintain artificially high prices for television receivers sold by defendants in Japan and, at the same time, to fix and maintain low prices for television receivers exported to and sold in the United States." Preliminary Pretrial Memorandum, App., vol. 3, at 712. Both plaintiffs charge that such activity violates sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Secs. 1, 2 (1982), and section 73 of the Wilson Tariff Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 8 (1982). Both complaints also charge that the pricing activity complained of violates the Antidumping Act of 1916, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 72 (1982). Zenith's complaint alleges sales at depressed prices not only of television receivers, but of radios, phonographs, tape and audio equipment, and electronic components. Zenith also alleges price discrimination among purchasers in violation of section 2(a) of the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP