AT&T Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics Corp. (In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig.)
| Decision Date | 26 December 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. M 07-1827 SI,C 10-0117 SI,MDL. No. 1827,C 10-4572 SI,C 10-4945 SI,C 09-4997 SI,M 07-1827 SI |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
| Parties | In re: TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST LITIGATION This Order Relates to: AT&T Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics Corp., et al., Best Buy Co., Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp., et al., Electrograph Systems, Inc. v. Epson Imaging Devices Corp., et al., Target Corp. v. AU Optronics Corp., et al. |
On November 2, 2012, the Court held a hearing on defendants' motion for summary judgment as to purchases of panels made by supposed conspirators not alleged in the complaints. After the hearing, the Court directed the parties to file supplemental declarations; those declarations were filed on November 7 and November 12, 2012. For the reasons set forth in this order, defendants' motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Docket Nos. 6178, 6350.
To calculate indirect purchaser damages, plaintiffs' experts Dr. Leslie Marx (testifying for the Target, Electrograph, and AT&T plaintiffs) and Dr. Alan Frankel (testifying for the Best Buy plaintiffs)calculated the total combined market share of the supposed participants in the conspiracy, and multiplied that against each plaintiff's total indirect purchases to show the total indirect purchases of products containing panels made by the alleged conspirators ("the market share approach"). In calculating panel market share, both experts included purported co-conspirators that are not named in plaintiffs' complaints.1
As an alternative to the market share approach, Dr. Marx also calculated damages based on the "umbrella theory." The umbrella theory hypothesizes that a successful price-fixing conspiracy among certain firms creates a "price umbrella" that allows non-conspiring competitor firms to raise their prices without fear of losing market share. In re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Petroleum Products Antitrust Litigation, 691 F.2d 1335, 1339 (9th Cir. 1982) ( ). In making the "umbrella theory" damages calculations, Dr. Marx included all of plaintiffs' purchases of TFT-LCD products, including purchases from non-conspirators.
Summary judgment is proper "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The moving party, however, has no burden to negate or disprove matters on which the non-moving party will have the burden of proof at trial. The moving party need only demonstrate to the Court that there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party's case. See id. at 325.
The burden then shifts to the non-moving party to "designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Id. at 324. To carry this burden, the non-moving party must "do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). "The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence . . . will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the [non-moving party]." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986).
In deciding a summary judgment motion, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in its favor. Id. at 255. "Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge [when she] is ruling on a motion for summary judgment." Id. Conclusory, speculative testimony in affidavits and moving papers is insufficient to raise genuine issues of fact and defeat summary judgment. Thornhill Publ'g Co., Inc. v. GTE Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 738 (9th Cir.1979); see also Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1061 (9th Cir. 2002) (). The evidence presented by the parties must be admissible. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Hearsay statements found in affidavits are inadmissible. Fong v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 626 F.2d 759, 762-63 (9th Cir. 1980).
Defendants move for summary judgment as to plaintiffs' claims for damages based on purchases of panels manufactured by entities other than the defendants and alleged co-conspirators named in plaintiffs' complaints as "co-conspirators." Specifically, defendants seek summary judgment as to plaintiffs' claims based on purchases of panels manufactured by the following entities:
(i) Target Corp., Sears, Roebuck and Co., Kmart Corp., Old Comp, Inc., Good Guys, Inc., RadioShack Corp., and Newegg, Inc.: Acer Display, Advanced Displays, Inc., Alps Electric Co., Ltd., Hitachi, ID Tech, Innolux Display Corp., LG Innotek, Mitsui & Co. (Taiwan) Ltd., Mitsui & Co. (USA) Inc., NEC Corp., NEC Corp. of America, NEC Display Solutions of America, NEC Electronics America,Optrex Corp., Quanta Display Corp., Toppoly Optoelectronics Corp., TPO Displays Corp., and Unipac Electronics Corp.;
(ii) Best Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Purchasing LLC, Best Buy Stores, L.P., Best Buy China Ltd., and Magnolia Hi-Fi, Inc.: Acer Display, Advanced Displays, Inc., Alps Electric Co., Ltd., BOE Corp., ID Tech, Innolux Display Corp., LG Innotek, NEC Corp., NEC Corp. of America, NEC Display Solutions of America, Nikon, Optrex Corp., Philips Kobe, Quanta Display Corp., Samsung SDI, Samsung Mobile Display, Sanyo Consumer Electronics Co., Ltd., SVA-NEC, Toppoly Optoelectronics Corp., TPO Displays Corp., and Unipac Electronics Corp.;
(iii) Electrograph Systems, Inc. and Electrograph Technologies Corp.: Acer Display, Advanced Displays, Inc., Alps Electric Co., Ltd., ID Tech, Innolux Display Corp., LG Innotek, NEC Corp., Optrex Corp., Quanta Display Corp., Samsung Mobile Display, Samsung SDI, Ltd., Samsung SDI America, Inc., Seiko Instruments, Inc., SVA-NEC, Toppoly Optoelectronics Corp., TPO Displays Corp., and Unipac Electronics Corp.;
(iv) AT&T Mobility LLC, AT&T Corp., AT&T Services, Inc., Bellsouth Telecommunications, Inc., Pacific Bell Telephone Company, AT&T Operations, Inc., AT&T Datacomm, Inc., and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company: Acer Display, Advanced Displays, Inc., Alps Electric Co., Ltd., Hitachi Ltd., Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc., ID Tech, Innolux Display Corp., Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. (a/k/a Royal Philips Electronics N.V.), LG Innotek, Mitsui & Co. (Taiwan) Ltd., Mitsui & Co. (U.S.A.), Inc., NEC Corporation, NEC Corporation of America, NEC Display Solutions of America, Inc., NEC Electronics America, Inc., Optrex Corp., Philips Electronics North America Corporation, Quanta Display Corp., Toppoly Optoelectronics Corp., TPO Displays Corp., and Unipac Electronics Corp.
Defendants contend that "federal law precludes plaintiffs from pursuing damages claims on theories not presented in their complaint." Docket No. 6178 at 11:11-12. Defendants assert that plaintiffs first identified the purported co-conspirators at issue in expert reports served after the close of fact discovery, and that permitting the addition of new co-conspirators would be prejudicial because defendants did not have the opportunity to conduct discovery on these damages claims.
Plaintiffs contend that they need not identify all co-conspirators in their complaints in order torecover damages based on purchases from those co-conspirators.2 The Court agrees with plaintiffs that the authority cited by defendants does not hold that an antitrust plaintiff must identify all alleged co-conspirators in the complaint. Instead, those cases simply hold that a plaintiff must provide the defendant with adequate notice of his or her claims, and that, under the facts of those cases, the plaintiffs had failed to do so. See Pickern v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 457 F.3d 963, 969 (9th Cir. 2006) (); see also Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 654 F.3d 903, 908-09 (9th Cir. 2011) ().
The Court finds that relevant inquiry is not whether plaintiffs named all co-conspirators in their complaints, but whether plaintiffs have provided adequate notice of the claimed co-conspirators either in their complaints or through discovery such that defendants are not prejudiced. In William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., Inc., 668 F.2d 1014 (9th Cir. 1981), the Ninth Circuit held that although the plaintiff was not required to allege the identity of every co-conspirator to state a claim for relief, the plaintiff "was required at some point to make more...
To continue reading
Request your trial