Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Ind. Co.

• Decision Date: 07 August 1980
• Docket Number: 74-3247. MDL 189.,Civ. A. No. 74-2451
• Citation: 505 F. Supp. 1125
• Parties: ZENITH RADIO CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD., et al., Defendants. NATIONAL UNION ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD., et al., Defendants. In re JAPANESE ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

505 F. Supp. 1125

ZENITH RADIO CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v.MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD., et al., Defendants.

NATIONAL UNION ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v.MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD., et al., Defendants.

In re JAPANESE ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION.

Civ. A. Nos. 74-2451, 74-3247. MDL 189.

United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

August 7, 1980.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Blank, Rome, Comisky & McCauley, by Edwin P. Rome, William H. Roberts, John Hardin Young, Arnold I. Kalman, Kathleen H. Larkin, Norman E. Greenspan, Lawrence S. Bauman, Philadelphia, Pa., for Zenith Radio Corporation and National Union Electric Corporation, plaintiffs.

Philip J. Curtis, John Borst, Jr., Glenview, Ill., for Zenith Radio Corporation, plaintiff.

Mudge, Rose, Guthrie & Alexander by Donald J. Zoeller, John P. Hederman, Thomas P. Lynch, Howard C. Crystal, Robert A. Jaffe, Shelly B. O'Neill, Mark K. Neville, Jr., New York City, Drinker, Biddle & Reath by Patrick T. Ryan, Philadelphia, Pa., for Tokyo Shibaura Elec. Co., Ltd. and Toshiba America, Inc., defendants; defense coordinating counsel.

Duane, Morris & Heckscher by Henry T. Reath, Terry R. Broderick, Philadelphia, Pa., Crummy, Del Deo, Dolan & Purcell by John T. Dolan, Arnold B. Calmann, Newark, N.J., Baker & McKenzie by Hoken S. Seki, Thomas E. Johnson, Chicago, Ill., for Mitsubishi Electric Corporation.

Reid & Priest by Charles F. Schirmeister, Robert J. Lynch, New York City, L. Peter Farkas, Washington, D.C., for Mitsubishi Corporation and Mitsubishi International Corporation, defendants.

Weil, Gotshal & Manges by Ira M. Millstein, A. Paul Victor, Joel B. Harris, Kevin P. Hughes, Robert K. Hood, H. Adam Prussin, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Stuart Peim, Lenore Liberman, Gayle E. Hanlon, Alan Rothstein, Makoto Matsuo, New York City, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius by Raymond T. Cullen, Philadelphia, Pa., for Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Inc., Matsushita Elec. Corp. of America, Matsushita Electronics Corp., Matsushita Elec. Trading Co., and Quasar Electronics Corp., defendants.

Metzger, Shadyac & Schwarz by Carl W. Schwarz, Michael E. Friedlander, William H. Barrett, Stephen P. Murphy, William B. T. Mock, Jr.; Tanaka, Walders & Ritger by Lawrence R. Walders, B. Jenkins Middleton, Washington, D.C., Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz by Robert Conrad, Philadelphia, Pa., for Hitachi, Ltd., Hitachi Sales Corporation of America, and Hitachi Kaden Hanbai Kabushiki Kaisha, defendants.

Wender, Murase & White by Peter J. Gartland, Gene Yukio Matsuo, Peter A. Dankin, Lance Gotthoffer, New York City, for Sharp Corporation and Sharp Electronics Corporation, defendants.

Whitman & Ransom by Patrick H. Sullivan, Dugald C. Brown, Kevin R. Keating, Michael S. Press, New York City, Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz by Charles J. Bloom, Philadelphia, Pa., for Sanyo Elec., Inc., Sanyo Elec. Co., Ltd., and Sanyo Elec. Trading Co., Ltd., defendants.

Arnstein, Gluck, Weitzenfeld & Minow by Louis A. Lehr, Jr., Stanley M. Lipnick, John L. Ropiequet, Chicago, Ill., for Sears, Roebuck & Co., defendant.

Rosenman, Colin, Freund, Lewis & Cohen by Asa D. Sokolow, Renee J. Roberts, Marc Rowin, Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler by Joshua F. Greenberg, New York City, Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen by Franklin Poul, Philadelphia, Pa., for Sony Corp. and Sony Corp. of America, defendants.

Kirkland & Ellis by Thomas P. Coffey, E. Houston Harsha, Karl F. Nygren, Chicago, Ill., for Motorola, Inc., defendant.

EDWARD R. BECKER, District Judge.

OPINION(Pretrial OrderNo. 283)

(Admissibility of Public Records and Reports)

                                      CONTENTS
                     I. Preliminary Statement ................................................... 1136
                    II. Rule 803(8) - Its Scope and Its Requisites .............................. 1143
                        A. Matters Admissible Under 803(8)(C) ................................... 1143
                        B. The Trustworthiness Proviso .......................................... 1146
                   III. The 1921 Antidumping Act Material ....................................... 1150
                        A. Introduction ......................................................... 1150
                        B. The 1921 Act Proceedings ............................................. 1151
                        C. The Hearsay Objection - Are the Exceptions Satisfied ................. 1155
                           1. Introduction ...................................................... 1155
                           2. The LTFV Findings ................................................. 1155
                           3. The Injury Finding ................................................ 1157
                           4. The Dumping Finding ............................................... 1157
                           5. The CF 29's ....................................................... 1157
                        D. The Relevancy Objections ............................................. 1158
                           1. The LTFV Finding .................................................. 1158
                           2. The Injury Finding ................................................ 1160
                           3. The Dumping Finding ............................................... 1160
                

        E. Exclusion of Evidence Under Rule 403 ................................. 1160
                           1. Danger of Unfair Prejudice ........................................ 1160
                           2. Confusion of the Issues and Misleading the Jury ................... 1161
                           3. Considerations of Undue Delay and Waste of Time ................... 1161
                           4. Needless Presentation of Cumulative Evidence ...................... 1161
                    IV. Findings Under the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and the Trade Act of
                        1974 .................................................................... 1162
                        A. Introduction; Overview of Trade Act Proceedings ...................... 1162
                        B. The Escape Clause Proceedings in Question ............................ 1164
                        C. The Trade Adjustment Assistance Proceedings .......................... 1165
                        D. Statistical Data ..................................................... 1165
                        E. The Hearsay Objection ................................................ 1165
                           1. Escape Clause Proceedings ......................................... 1165
                              a. Did the Commission Make 803(8)(C) Findings ..................... 1165
                              b. Trustworthiness ................................................ 1166
                           2. Trade Adjustment Assistance Proceedings ........................... 1168
                              a. Were 803(8)(C) Findings Made ................................... 1168
                              b. Trustworthiness ................................................ 1169
                        F. The Relevancy Objection .............................................. 1170
                           1. The Escape Clause Proceedings ..................................... 1170
                           2. Trade Adjustment Assistance Proceedings ........................... 1171
                        G. Exclusion of Evidence Under Rule 403 ................................. 1172
                        H. Miscellaneous Documents .............................................. 1172
                     V. The Records and Findings of the Japanese Fair Trade Commission
                        (JFTC) .................................................................. 1173
                        A. Nature of the Proceedings before the JFTC ............................ 1173
                        B. The JFTC Documents at Issue .......................................... 1176
                           1. The Market Stabilization Case ..................................... 1176
                           2. The Matsushita Resale Price Maintenance Case ...................... 1176
                        C. The Evidentiary Contentions .......................................... 1178
                           1. Introduction ...................................................... 1178
                           2. The Hearsay Question: Admissibility Under 803(8)(C) ............... 1178
                              a. Findings ....................................................... 1179
                              b. Trustworthiness ................................................ 1180
                           3. F.R.E. 408, 410, and ? 5(a) of the Clayton Act .................... 1181
                           4. Other Relevancy Objections ........................................ 1184
                    VI. Admissibility of Judge Higginbotham's Findings of Fact .................. 1184
                   VII. Materials from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
                        and the United Nations .................................................. 1186
                        A. Introduction ......................................................... 1186
                        B. Are the OECD and the United Nations Public Offices or Agencies
                           Under 803(8) ......................................................... 1187
                        C. Trustworthiness ...................................................... 1187
                

  VIII. Conclusion .............................................................. 1188
                  Appendix ...................................................................... 1189
                

I.Preliminary Statement

This is the first of several opinions that will address the myriad issues raised during the course of a lengthy pretrial evidentiary hearing in this antitrust case, the anatomy and scope of which have been described elsewhere.¹The hearing, which commenced on June 16, 1980, and terminated on July 18, 1980, has had a two-fold purpose.First, it has enabled us to rule upon the admissibility of a number of documents that play a critical role in plaintiffs' case so that we will know whether to consider them in ruling upon defendants' motions for summary judgment, particularly their motions addressed to plaintiffs' conspiracy claims.²Second, the hearings were in limine, and have provided the forum for a pretrial ruling on the question whether plaintiffs have come forward with a...