Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust Litigation, In re

Decision Date05 December 1983
Docket NumberNo. 189,Nos. 81-2331,No. 74-2451,No. 74-3247,189,74-2451,74-3247,s. 81-2331
Citation723 F.2d 238
Parties, 1983-2 Trade Cases 65,757, 14 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 401 In re JAPANESE ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION (D.C. MDL). ZENITH RADIO CORPORATION, Appellant, v. MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD., et al. (D.C.Civ.). In re JAPANESE ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION (D.C. MDL). NATIONAL UNION ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Appellant, v. MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD., et al. (D.C.Civ.). In re JAPANESE ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION (D.C. MDL). ZENITH RADIO CORPORATION v. MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD., et al. (D.C.Civ.). NATIONAL UNION ELECTRIC CORPORATION v. MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD., et al. (D.C.Civ.) Mitsubishi Electric Corporation ("MELCO"), Appellant. to 81-2333.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

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
                

* Hon. Thomas J. Meskill, United States Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit,

sitting by designation.

Page 250

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
555 cases
  • Hallums v. US, No. 98-CM-1354.
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • February 12, 2004
    ...or conscious fabrication.") (quoting United States v. Blakey, 607 F.2d 779, 785 (7th Cir.1979)); In re Japanese Elec. Prods. Antitrust Litig., 723 F.2d 238, 303 (3d Cir.1983) (exception for present sense impression founded on notion that contemporaneity of observation and impression protect......
  • Salt Pond Associates v. US ARMY CORPS OF ENG.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • February 19, 1993
    ...be drawn in favor of the responding party, then the moving party cannot obtain summary judgment. In re Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust Litigation, 723 F.2d 238, 258 (3rd Cir.1983), rev'd on other grounds, 475 U.S. 574, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 IV. DISCUSSION Before proceeding w......
  • Pfizer Inc. v. Elan Pharmaceutical Research Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • February 4, 1993
    ...may be drawn in favor of the responding party, then the moving party cannot obtain summary judgment. In re Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust Litigation, 723 F.2d 238, 258 (3d Cir.1983), rev'd on other grounds, 475 U.S. 574, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 II. DISCUSSION A. PFIZER'S STAN......
  • E.E.O.C. v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • May 18, 1984
    ...defense. On summary judgment, the movant's affidavits must establish a prima facie defense of laches. See In re Japanese Elec. Prods. Antit. Litig., 723 F.2d 238, 258 (3d Cir.1983). C. Scope of Length of delay and other matters of historical circumstance are questions of fact. In the event ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
33 books & journal articles
  • Introduction to evidentiary foundations
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Trial Evidence Foundations - 2017 Contents
    • July 31, 2017
    ...does not have an absolute right to have evidence displayed in its entirety in open court. In re Supreme Elec. Prods. Antitrust Litig. , 723 F.2d 238 (3rd Cir. 1983). So long as the spirit of the rules is observed, a court is not restricted in how it applies rules on admissibility of evidenc......
  • Price discrimination and related conduct
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Law and Economics of Product Distribution
    • January 1, 2016
    ...1986). Furthermore, both sales must occur within the United States and its territories. See In re Japanese Elecs. Prods. Antitrust Litig., 723 F.2d 238, 317 (3d Cir. 1983), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. , Matsushita Elec. Indus. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986). 80. See, e.g. , ......
  • Pretrial preparation
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Preparing for Trial in Federal Court
    • May 4, 2010
    ...field.” FRE 703; Shatkin v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. , 727 F.2d 202, 208 (2d Cir. 1984); In re Japanese Elec. Prods. Antitrust Litig. , 723 F.2d 238, 276-78 (3rd Cir. 1983), rev’d on other grounds sub nom , Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574 (1986). The expert m......
  • Presenting Your Expert at Trial and Arbitration
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Qualifying & Attacking Expert Witnesses - 2020 Contents
    • August 4, 2020
    ...call” that the jury could make unassisted. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, and relying upon In re Japanese Products 723 F.2d 238 (3d Cir. 1983), noted that there is no requirement that expert testimony be beyond the jury’s sphere of knowledge. Even when jurors are well equipp......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 provisions
  • 29 C.F.R. 18 app to Subpart B of Part 18 Reporter's Notes
    • United States
    • Code of Federal Regulations 2023 Edition Title 29. Labor Subtitle A. Office of the Secretary of Labor Part 18. Rules of Practice and Procedure For Administrative Hearings Before the Office of Administrative Law Judges Subpart B. Rules of Evidence Applicability
    • January 1, 2023
    ...with respect to questions of admissibility generally, section 18.104(a), see In re Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust Litigation, 723 F.2d 238, 265-66 (3d Cir. 1983) ("The scope of review of the trial court's trustworthiness determination depends on the basis for the ruling. When the tr......
  • 29 C.F.R. B app to Subpart B of Part 18 Reporter's Notes
    • United States
    • Code of Federal Regulations 2023 Edition Title 29. Labor Subtitle A. Office of the Secretary of Labor Part 18. Rules of Practice and Procedure For Administrative Hearings Before the Office of Administrative Law Judges Subpart B. Rules of Evidence
    • January 1, 2023
    ...to questions of admissibility generally, section 29undefined18.104(a), see In re Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust Litigation, 723 F.2d 238, 265-66 (3d Cir. 1983) ("The scope of review of the trial court's trustworthiness determination depends on the basis for the ruling. When the tria......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT